Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Wrexham, in the room of Robert Richards, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Bowden.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Malaya Reinforcements

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Minister of Defence what request he received from the Director of Operations in Malaya for reinforcements of Canberra jet bombers and of a squadron of the Parachute Regiment.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The Canberra bombers were sent to Malaya to enable operational trials of the aircraft to be carried out in tropical conditions. The squadron of the Parachute Regiment will be a valuable reinforcement in the successful operations now proceeding in the deep jungle into which the hard core terrorists have been driven.

Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Director of Operations has said that he was baffled by the War Office statement that he had made an urgent request for these reinforcements, and does not he think that the Government would be better occupied in trying to bring an end to the fighting on the lines suggested by responsible members of the Malayan and Chinese community in Malaya?

Mr. Macmillan: There may have been some confusion. The provision of the reinforcements did not reflect a reverse. The move was made in order to take prompt advantage of the improvement in the situation and to exploit a success.

British Forces, Canal Zone (Withdrawal)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Defence whether the evacuation of the British Forces from the Suez Canal Zone is proceeding satisfactorily; and if he will make a statement on the present position.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The withdrawal of British Forces from the Canal Zone is proceeding satisfactorily. The Egyptian authorities continue to give us their full co-operation.

Sir T. Moore: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that gratifying reply, may I ask him whether it would be right to assume that this satisfactory progress is due to the increasing good will of the Egyptians and/or to the tact and discretion shown by the British authorities on the spot?

Mr. Macmillan: I am sure that it reflects a general all-round improvement in the situation.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the statement he made in reply to the hon. Member's Question was in very general terms, saying that the evacuation is proceeding satisfactorily? Can he give any indication how many men have actually been returned to this country?

Mr. Macmillan: The Question was in general terms and, therefore, I answered it in general terms.

Dominion and Colonial Immigrants (Enlistment)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Defence what efforts are made by his Department to inform British subjects entering this country from the Dominions and the Colonies, of the opportunities which exist for enlistment in the Armed Forces on Regular engagement.

Mr. H. Macmillan: No special measures are taken. The opportunities for British subjects, including those from overseas, to join the Forces are given ample publicity. Further information may be obtained from Service recruiting offices and Ministry of Labour employment exchanges.

Mr. Collins: In view of the large number of immigrants in these days, and particularly the splendid record of men


from the Colonies during the last war, will not the Minister make a special effort in this matter and not, as it were, let it go by default?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think that anything very special is required.

Brigadier Rayner: If a man becomes officially liable for service when he arrives here is he so informed?

Mr. Macmillan: I should like notice of that question.

Mrs. Braddock: Has the Minister any information about the society that is working in Jamaica providing money on a repayment basis to the men who wish to come to this country, and loaning more money for the purpose of enabling them to find housing accommodation here? Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of this traffic, and, if he has not, will he make inquiries and find out whether there is any truth in this assertion?

Mr. Macmillan: I must say that that question is not relevant either to the Question on the Paper or to my Department.

New Rifle

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Defence with what countries standardisation of the new rifle, adopted for use in the British Forces, has so far been achieved and on what dates; with what further countries he hopes to achieve standardisation; and what are the grounds for such hopes.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Belgium adopted the rifle in 1953; the Australian Government announced their intention of doing so last month. I understand that Canada is likely to adopt it when troop trials are completed. New Zealand and South Africa are also taking part in the trials and other countries are showing an interest.

Mr. Wyatt: But is not the Minister aware—have not they told him yet?—that the Belgian rifle has been redesigned in inches and so therefore the British one will not be interchangeable in its parts with the Belgian rifle? And as it will not be accepted by Canada or by the United States there will be no standardisation with any country, not even with Belgium and Luxembourg?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman is drawing false deductions from false premises.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with this. Surely he is aware now that there is no question of standardisation in view of the adjustments which have taken place in the rifle? Will he now agree that there is no possibility of standardisation in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Macmillan: I answered the Question. It is that some countries have adopted the rifle and other countries are considering it.

Mr. Strachey: Would not the Minister agree that the Commonwealth countries which he mentioned were long ago standardised on the British rifle and that if we had adopted it—if the decision had not been reversed—we should now have the rifle in service for our own Army?

Mr. Macmillan: That is another question.

Mr. Wyatt: Does not the Minister realise that it is quite misleading to pretend that there could be standardisation with Belgium on a rifle which has been altered in its design in measurement so that the parts can no longer be interchangeable with the Belgian rifle?

Mr. Macmillan: That is not a true statement. There can be standardisation and there is a possibility of this rifle being accepted throughout the Commonwealth.

Aircraft Allocations

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Defence what machinery exists in his Department for the allocation of aircraft between the three Services.

Mr. H. Macmillan: No formal machinery exists, nor does it seem necessary. If any particular problem arose, my Department would deal with it, in consultation with the Departments concerned, as part of its normal function of allocating resources.

Mr. Wyatt: Would not it help in assisting to sort out the muddle in defence which the Minister has been brought in to clear up if there were some central authority which could evaluate new aircraft for all three Services so that we could avoid a situation in which the


Royal Air Force object to the D.H. 110 and it is then accepted by the Navy, although regarded by the Royal Air Force as being unable to meet the conditions of modern warfare?

Mr. Macmillan: I will consider the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, like any other, but I do not think that any kind of formal machinery of this kind is required. The Ministry of Defence and the Service Departments work together for this purpose.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of his primary functions is to allocate equipment as between the three Services?

Mr. Macmillan: Certainly, it is part of the normal function of my Department to allocate resources. That is why I do not think—although I will consider the point—that any special kind of machinery is required for that purpose.

Mr. Strachey: Should not the Minister be pleased that no formal machinery exists to allocate the aircraft, as no aircraft exist either?

British Forces, Germany (Cost)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Defence the estimated yearly cost in foreign exchange, of maintaining four British divisions and the Second Tactical Air Force in Germany.

Mr. H. Macmillan: About £70 million to £80 million in a full year.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the continued weakness of sterling on foreign exchanges, will the right hon. Gentleman keep to a minimum this expenditure which entails a burden of many more millions on the British taxpayer?

Mr. Macmillan: We shall do everything to effect all possible economies.

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Defence the estimated additional local cost of maintaining our forces in Germany for 1955–56 and 1956–57, respectively, compared with the cost in 1954–55, based on the assumption that the Paris treaties will be ratified.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I would refer the hon. Member to the note on financial arrangements contained in Command Paper No. 9304. The precise answer to

his Question depends both on the date of ratification of the Paris Agreements and on the outcome of future negotiations with the Government of the Federal German Republic.

Mr. Fletcher: May we take it from that reply that steps will be taken by the Government to reduce this additional cost from the figures indicated in the financial note?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes. I tried to explain in the debate some of the methods which we will try to follow.

Children (Educational Facilities)

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Minister of Defence whether he is aware that members of Her Majesty's Forces are being penalised financially in the matter of the education of their children having regard to the difficulties which service conditions impose upon them; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am afraid that I cannot at present add to the reply I gave on 16th February to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick).

Mr. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend attach great importance to this subject, because it affects recruitment for the Regular Forces? Will he bear in mind that the Select Committee on the Army and Air Force Bill paid particular attention to this matter and drew it to the attention of this House?

Mr. Macmillan: I will bear that in mind.

Mr. de Freitas: Will the Minister look again at the Hansard report of the last Air Estimate debate to see the arguments advanced at that time?

Mr. Macmillan: I have already done that.

Swift Aircraft

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Defence if Her Majesty's Government are now able to make a statement about the future of the Swift aircraft.

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Defence when he expects to be able to say whether the production of the Swift aircraft will be continued.

Mr. H. Macmillan: As has already been announced, Marks I, II and III of the Swift cannot be brought up to an acceptable operational standard. After further tests on the Mark IV, it has been decided that the production of this Mark shall be restricted to a limited number, and that we shall rely mainly on the Hunter, which was developed as a parallel project and has proved a fine aircraft capable of further development. Development work on other Marks of the Swift, intended for certain specialist roles, will continue.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend say when this aircraft was first ordered and how many prototypes were ordered afterwards?

Mr. Macmillan: I think that two prototypes were ordered in the first instance. Of course, the ordering of those was before I or any of my colleagues had any responsibility in this matter.

Mr. de Freitas: But had it not been known for a long time that whereas the Hunter had the makings of a first-rate fighter, the Swift had no such possibility? If that be so, why was the wasteful production of the Swift continued?

Mr. Macmillan: Curiously enough, that is exactly the question I asked myself when I first came into these affairs, but I found that had we done what the hon. Gentleman suggests we should have done exactly the wrong thing, because all the earlier reports, up to fairly recently—a year or 18 months ago—were that the Hunter would not be so successful as the Swift.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: While regretting that this aircraft has not proved to be as successful as we should have liked, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman would agree that he and his colleagues fully endorsed the decision of the previous Government to go ahead with this aircraft, described then as one of the finest potential fighters in the world?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, and that is why I am confidently looking to those on the Opposition Front Bench not to make party capital out of this.

Mr. Shinwell: Was not the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the previous supplementary question an indication that he was trying to make

political capital out of it? May I ask if he has seen the reply to a Question put to his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Supply who, when asked about our air defences, said that they were the best in the world—[HON. MEMBERS: "Night defences."]—our defence system was the best in the world—[HON. MEMBERS: "Night defences."]—all right, our night defence system was the best in the world; and that he was surprised that we should criticise it because we had been responsible for ordering the aircraft?

Mr. Macmillan: That is the Question next on the Order Paper.

Mr. Wyatt: Why does not the Minister now abandon the Swift instead of trying to turn it into a wholly unjustifiably expensive fighter aircraft to be used only against ground targets?

Mr. Macmillan: While not wishing to interrupt any debate between the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Front Bench, I think we had better leave this rather technical subject for detailed discussion in the course of the forthcoming debate.

Night Air Defences

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Defence the nature of the defence against air attack at night refered to in the White Paper on the Supply of Military Aircraft, Command Paper No. 9388.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The night fighter squadrons of the R.A.F. operating in conjunction with the early warning radar network and its corresponding ground control system.

Mr. Wyatt: As we have no guided missiles to replace Anti-Aircraft Command, and as we have no night-fighter with sufficient speed in hand to catch the Russian bomber in use at present, is it not thoroughly misleading to pretend to the nation that we have the best night-fighter defence in the world when all that is meant is that no one has a night fighter defence?

Mr. Macmillan: No, it is not misleading. The statements made in the White Paper were made after full consultation with those who could best advise me, and I profoundly believe them to be true.

Missing Personnel, Korea

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Defence how many Service men are still posted as deserters or missing in Korea.

Mr. H. Macmillan: All Service men formerly classified as missing have now been presumed dead for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in this House on 2nd November last year. I will let the hon. and gallant Member have as soon as possible the number of men still posted as deserters.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the fact that there are still a number of deserters who are posted as missing, will the right hon. Gentleman make it unnecessary for the next of kin to go to the court, as was the case only the other day, to ask leave to presume the death of a husband?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that there is a painful pull about what one ought to do. If one puts down a man as definitely dead too early, it is very painful and may be very difficult, but if we leave it too long there are other bad results. I think that in present circumstances we must try to act as the Secretary of State is doing and clear up the matter before posting these men as definitely killed.

Hydrogen Bomb

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Defence what experiments he intends to carry out with the use of hydrogen bombs; and where these experiments will take place.

Mr. H. Macmillan: There is no information that I can give the hon. Member at this stage.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the very alarming effects of these experiments with the hydrogen bomb, may we have an assurance from the Government that no experiments will take place without the express approval of Parliament?

Mr. Macmillan: I am afraid I am not prepared to add to the answer which I have just given.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As the Government have decided to manufacture the hydrogen bomb, can the Minister tell us

whether any estimate was taken of its cost? Can he tell the House what is the cost of manufacturing the hydrogen bomb?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. I am afraid that I am not capable of making that reply.

Africa (Defence Organisation)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a further statement on the prospect of a defence agreement with the Union of South Africa.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the prospect of a defence organisation in Africa. I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave him on 1st November last year.

Mr. Hamilton: Why is the Minister so cagey about this question? Was not the matter discussed at the recent Commonwealth Conference? Will he give a specific assurance that such an organisation will not be used as a backstairs method to give back these Protectorates to what is, in effect, a Nazi Government?

Mr. Macmillan: I tried to answer the Question as it was put, and I have nothing to add to what I said before.

Oral Answers to Questions — ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE

Major Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the investigation of the British-Icelandic fishing dispute by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what developments there are in the negotiations with the Icelandic Government in respect to the fishing dispute; and, in particular, what representations have been made to enable British trawlers to shelter in Icelandic bays during bad weather.

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further steps he has taken to settle the fishing dispute with the Icelandic Government.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. R. H. Turton): Discussions are taking place under a chairman appointed by the Organisation for


European Economic Co-operation. As these discussions are confidential, I regret that I cannot make a statement at the present time. As regards the second part of Question No. 24, the hon. Member is under a misapprehension; trawlers of all nationalities have always been able to shelter in Icelandic waters, provided their fishing gear is stowed.

Major Wall: Can my hon. Friend say whether these negotiations are still proceeding, and whether or not the industry has been associated with them? Does he appreciate that he has the full support of the fishing industry in trying to find some acceptable solution to this unfortunate dispute?

Mr. Turton: These discussions are still proceeding and, therefore, I do not want to say anything more about the matter at the present time, but I am most grateful for the assurance contained in the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question.

Mr. Collins: Can the Joint Undersecretary now say when he hopes to be able to make a statement at the end of these negotiations, because they have been going on for many months, and, considering that they are taking place with a friendly Power, a settlement should be reached?

Mr. Turton: These negotiations, stimulated by O.E.E.C., have not been going on for a very long time and it would therefore be better not to be too impatient. By being a little patient we may be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Willey: In view of the fact that the conditions with regard to sheltering in Iceland mean a limitation of shelter, and in view of the tragic losses of last month, will the Joint Under-Secretary do what he can to expedite a decision being reached in this case?

Mr. Turton: We are well aware of that fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS INFORMATION SERVICES

Mr. Gordon Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement of Gov-

ernment policy concerning the recommendation of the Drogheda Committee that all overseas information work should be based on a long-term plan not subject to short-term financial fluctuations.

Mr. Turton: My right hon. Friend informed the House on 8th November last year that Her Majesty's Government have accepted the broad principles set out in the Drogheda Report. As he then made clear, however, Her Majesty's Government must have liberty to maintain flexibility in a situation where there are constant new developments.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Can the hon. Member say in what way accepting the broad principle of the Report differs from refusing to carry out its practical propositions and proposals? Is he aware that the very thing that the Drogheda Committee feared is coming about, namely, great uncertainty and a lowering of morale in the staffs concerned?

Mr. Turton: The difference must surely be shown by what we have done in the last two years. In the present financial year we have made provision for an expansion of the services, and in the coming financial year we shall make a similar provision. That is the broad principle of the Drogheda Report—that there shall be continuing expansion for these services in the most vital areas.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman state what expansion is taking place and whether it is not a fact that to a very large extent the increased expenditure—which is not of a large order—only makes up for the increase in the cost of those services, and in actual fact, where changes have been made in the services, those services have been cut down and the long-term programme is not being embarked upon at all?

Mr. Turton: As the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is perfectly true that one of the greatest difficulties is that the cost of living is rising in these foreign countries. That means that we cannot expand so fast. But in the last year over £100,000 was devoted to the expansion of services and in the coming financial year, in the Estimates which are now being presented, another £100,000 is being included for expansion.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Re-unification

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been sent to the resolution, sent to him on 31st January, by the 87 ex-Nazi generals and officers on the question of German unification; and how many of these officers are now employed in a military capacity.

Mr. Turton: These former German officers did not address their appeal to my right hon. Friend. So far as I know, no list of their names has been published.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that I am aware that no such appeal was addressed to the Foreign Office? But the appeal was given wide circulation in our own Press, and if he cannot give us a list, can he assure us at least that General von Paulas was the leader of the appeal? Can he have circulated in the Official Report any further information about any generals who headed this list?

Mr. H. Nicholls: On a point of order. I understood that an hon. Member was responsible for the accuracy of his Question. Now that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) has admitted that he knew that the inference behind his Question was untrue, was he in order in placing that Question upon the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: I did not understand the hon. Member to make that admission.

Mr. Turton: I should like to give the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) any information I have. I can assure him that General von Paulus was present, and I understand that also included among those present were a former chief supply officer to the Russian Zone police, a former S.S. leader, who was deputy to Himmler in 1944, and a former S.A. leader, who was at one time adviser to General Chiang Kai-shek.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a conference of parliamentarians from East and West Germany and from East European countries was held at Warsaw on 6th February and that a resolution was passed calling for the reunification of Germany through free controlled elections

on the basis of the electoral law envisaged in the plan put forward by him at Berlin; and whether he will approach the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to find out how far these proposals represent the views of the Soviet Government with a view to reopening negotiations on this basis.

Mr. Turton: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes," and to the second part of the Question, "No."

Mrs. Castle: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that the resolution passed at this conference of parliamentarians from Soviet satellite countries went much further than the Soviet broadcast of 15th January in accepting the plan for free German elections put forward by the British Foreign Secretary at Berlin? If there are ever to be any successful four-Power talks on Germany, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a good thing for us to start now to try to clarify the Soviet position and find out whether the Russians will accept these proposals?

Mr. Turton: I find it difficult to assume that the views of this conference necessarily represent the views of the Soviet Government, but, as my right hon. Friend reminded the House on 31st January, Her Majesty's Government are still awaiting a reply from the Soviet Government to our Note of 29th November, which asked them to submit concrete proposals.

Mr. John Hynd: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that any members of the West German Parliament attended this conference, and, if so, from what party?

Mr. Turton: I understand that in the whole conference there was one representative from Western Germany.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that at the Berlin Conference, which unfortunately failed, the Western Powers put forward certain proposals about free elections for the whole of Germany, which the Soviet Union at that time rejected—at any rate in any form acceptable to the Western Powers—but that since then there has been a whole series of official or quasi-official statements from the Soviet Union which make it appear to me that the Soviet Government have changed their attitude about this?


Are the Government now afraid to inquire whether they have made such a change in case it should turn out that the Russians have agreed with them?

Mr. Turton: I have been asked a Question about a certain conference that took place. I cannot regard any resolution of that conference as an official, or even semi-official, statement of the Soviet Government. We are still awaiting an official reply from the Soviet Government.

German Army Officers (Screening)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will seek an assurance from the Bonn Government that they will not employ in any position of control or authority in the new German Army anyone who has had connections with the Nazi Party, and particularly that no one who was convicted as a war criminal will receive any appointment in this new German Army.

Mr. Turton: No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister explain why he will not adopt the suggestion contained in the Question, because it is obvious that everyone in this country, whether for or against German rearmament, would like that assurance?

Mr. Turton: The selection of officers for the new German Army will be a matter for the Federal Government after the Paris Agreements come into force, but the Federal Government have made it quite clear that their intention is to screen the new officers' corps thoroughly.

Soviet Proposals

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the official Soviet proposals on 21st January, 1955, defined free elections as freedom to put forward electoral lists, and also urged national armed forces for Germany; and, in view of the general misconception of these proposals, if he will have them published and make copies of these proposals available to Members in the Library.

Mr. Turton: On the assumption that the hon. Lady is referring to the statement broadcast on 15th January on Moscow Radio, I am having a translation of this statement put in the Library.

Mrs. Mann: Could the hon. Gentleman go a little farther? Quite a number of hon. Members will not avail themselves of this statement. Is he aware that some of us are getting pretty sick of the constant whitewashing of Russia and the presentation to our people that Russia is against the rearmament of Germany? Will he not take steps to let the people of Britain know that the Russian proposals are not against German rearmament; they are against Western European rearmament and they are for national armed forces for Germany?

Mr. Turton: I sympathise and agree with the hon. Lady. I have noted with some pleasure the way in which she made that fact quite clear in a recent issue of the "Daily Herald." I believe that the answer to this Question—and this Question itself—will also serve that purpose. In fact, the broadcast statement did lay down the militarisation of all Germany, as indeed did the Soviet Note of 9th April, 1952. The Soviet Note laid down that there should be national armed forces for Germany. That was nearly identical with the statement in their Note of 10th March, 1952.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since this broadcast is a very important international document which has been discussed a great deal, would it not be of advantage to print it as a White Paper available for all Members, and might not the Note of 9th April, 1952, be reprinted with it?

Mr. Turton: If it is put in the Library, every hon. Member can read it—

Mrs. Mann: They do not want to read it.

Mr. Turton: —and I also understand that it is published in "Soviet News."

Mr. Noel-Baker: Surely hon. Members will want to take such a document away with them and compare it with previous documents. A White Paper would be obviously a great convenience to Members.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Would my hon. Friend consider publishing at the same time a report on the progress made in the rearmament of Eastern Germany since 1948? Many of us are sick of having the problem of Western German rearmament, German rearmament, and


East German rearmament completely confused by many Left-wing people in this country.

Mr. Turton: A statement was made, I think last July, showing the progress made in the militarisation of Eastern Germany, but I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.T.O. COUNTRIES (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will propose to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation that nuclear weapons should not be used by a member State except after consultation with the other members even in cases where that member State is engaged in military operations in which the other States take no part, in view of the fact that such action may endanger the safety of all member States alike.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): A country such as ours with world-wide commitments could not accept control by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation over non-N.A.T.O. activities. We could not therefore propose that other countries should submit to such restrictions. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation can therefore only impose restrictions on the actions of member Governments when they are acting as members of that Organisation. I may add that it is public knowledge that American Air forces based in Britain will only be used with the consent of Her Majesty's Government.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great concern in this country about President Eisenhower's statement of 9th February that there was no understanding with America's allies that would restrain his right to use atomic or nuclear weapons in the Formosan situation? In view of the danger to this country from retaliation against American bases here if atomic or nuclear weapons were used over Formosa, does not the Prime Minister agree that we ought to close this gap in our control over the use of nuclear weapons by our allies in any part of the world?

The Prime Minister: Sir, we have a great deal of influence and widespread responsibilities, but we are not yet all-powerful.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPANISH CUSTOMS DOCUMENTS (MOTOR CARS)

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will seek the abolition of the condition that customs documents for British motor cars visiting Spain must state the serial number and make of each tyre.

Mr. Turton: This condition does not appear sufficiently onerous or unusual to warrant the intervention of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Russell: Is it not rather a waste of time? No Spanish customs official ever bothers to check the numbers of tyres, and in any case, when one takes a car abroad four out of five tyres cannot possibly be new?

Mr. Turton: This regulation has been going on ever since 1910–45 years—and if it is time now for it to be altered, it would be wise for the motoring organisations to take up this matter with the Spanish motoring organisations.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR EAST (SITUATION)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will initiate consultations on the situation in the Far East in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 106 of the United Nations Charter.

Mr. Turton: No, Sir.

Mr. Warbey: Is the Joint Undersecretary aware that this procedure would provide a form of conference which would be in accordance with the United Nations Charter and would, at the same time, give an opportunity to invite both the authorities which claim to be the Government of China? If the Government do not wish to adopt this procedure, what procedure do they intend to adopt to get a peaceful settlement of this problem, which is now getting very acute indeed?

Mr. Turton: If the hon. Gentleman refers to Article 106 he will see that it provides for concerted action by permanent members of the Security Council in a situation which requires the use of armed force. Her Majesty's Government's object has been to stop the fighting not to extend it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-CHINESE RELATIONS

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will invite the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary of China, Mr. Chou En-lai, to this country to discuss international problems, including the problems of Formosa; and whether he will offer to visit China for this purpose.

The Prime Minister: The Chinese Government failed to take advantage of an excellent opportunity of making their views known when they rejected, it seemed rather scornfully, the invitation to attend the proceedings at the Security Council.
In the prevailing circumstances, I doubt if the visits suggested would be fruitful or even helpful.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chou En-lai and the Chinese People's Government have already stated that one of the reasons why they resent this is that they have not their rightful place in the Security Council. As the Foreign Secretary got on so well with Mr. Chou En-lai at Geneva, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that perhaps personal contact on this issue and on the question of the Chinese People's Government being represented on the Security Council might bear fruit?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I thought my answer rather implied that interpretation.

Mr. G. Thomas: Does not the Prime Minister realise that it is nonsense to expect the Chinese People's Government to come to a conference with Chiang Kai-shek present, and when will the right hon. Gentleman realise that peace is bigger than the pride of Chiang Kai-shek?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN (CONVENTION)

Mr. Morley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when Great Britain proposes to sign and ratify the Convention on the Political Rights of Women.

Mr. Turton: It is not proposed that the United Kingdom should become a party to this Convention.

Mr. Morley: In view of the fact that this country was a pioneer in the granting of political rights to women, is it not

rather regrettable that we have not signed this Convention when a number of other nations have done so?

Mr. Turton: It is not our practice to sign conventions unless we expect to be in a position to ratify them within a reasonable time. This particular Convention has certain articles in it which prevent us being able to conform to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND AGENCIES

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the uncertainty as to which regional arrangements and agencies are competent to act on behalf of the United Nations Security Council in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter, he will in struct the British representative on the Security Council to propose the drawing up of working rules for the registration and recognition of such agencies.

Mr. Turton: No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government are not satisfied that such a procedure would achieve anything useful.

Mr. Warbey: Is it not unsatisfactory and absurd when it is possible for several organisations suddenly to pop up and claim to be formed in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter regarding regional arrangements, and. in the case of Guatemala, take over responsibility for settling a dispute which ought to be settled by the Security Council? Would it not be more sensible to have some proper working rules about it?

Mr. Turton: I do not believe that to make this system more formal would really help a solution of international problems.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has from United Nations sources as to the number of refugees who have fled from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the satellite States to non-Communist countries during 1954.

Mr. Turton: The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees


estimates the figure at 1,800. This estimate does not include refugees to Yugoslavia, and excludes refugees from East to West Germany, who are not a United Nations responsibility.

Sir T. Moore: While thanking my hon. Friend for that incomplete information, may I ask him if he has any information as to the numbers of people who make the reverse journey?

Mr. Turton: Of the 1,800, there are none who made the reverse journey. There are some going from West to East Germany.

Mr. Fernyhough: Surely, the recent cases of Burgess and Maclean and of Dr. John reveal that this is a two-way traffic, and, in order that we may get a balanced picture, should not the hon. Gentleman provide the information?

Mr. Turton: I tried to do so. I said there was a certain flow from West to East Germany. In the last year, there were some 200,000 who went from East to West Germany, and the return flow was in the region of 50,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SOMALILAND (ANGLO-ETHIOPIAN AGREEMENT)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the universal opposition in British Somaliland to the United Kingdom-Ethiopia Agreement of 29th November, 1954; and what consultations he has had with the Secretary of State for the Colonies in this matter.

Captain Duncan: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the last part of the Question now being asked and inquire whether it is in order, in view of the fact that I have always thought that the Government were regarded as one and that it was not in order to ask whether consultations have taken place with other Ministers?

Mr. Speaker: I think it may be that the hon. and gallant Member is correct, but that will probably be embodied in the answer.

Mr. Turton: The reply to the Question is that my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be making a statement on this matter after Questions.

Mr. Johnson: While not anticipating that answer, may I ask the Minister if it is not a fact that the 1897 Agreement was signed without the understanding and knowledge of the Sultans of Somaliland, that it undercut the settlement of 1884, that over 50 years went by without their knowing that they were in this part of Abyssinia, and that it came as a bombshell to them a few weeks ago?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman had better wait until the Question is answered at the end of Questions.

Captain Duncan: As the question has not been answered by the Minister, may I ask you again, Mr. Speaker, whether it is to be regarded as a precedent and that we can now ask one Minister whether he has had consultations with another?

Mr. Speaker: I do not see anything out of order in asking for information of a general character, but the House should realise that the doctrine of the House is that Ministers are supposed to act in concert with one another. Asking what consultations have taken place between Ministers is really a waste of time.

Mr. Callaghan: With regard to the first part of the Question, which I understand is completely in order, may I ask the hon. Gentleman why the Government entered into this Agreement at this time, in view of the position in Somaliland, and what truth there is in the allegation that it is because oil interests are at work in this area that the Government are making these arrangements?

Mr. Turton: If the hon. Gentleman will await the statement of my right hon. Friend, he will fully understand the position.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend will be able to say why the Agreement has been entered into at this time. The Agreement is signed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Will he tell us why it is made now?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think we can discuss this matter until we get the answer to the Question.

Mr. J. Dugdale: Surely, as the hon. Gentleman has said that the Agreement was actually signed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he therefore has responsibility for this Agreement?

Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State for the Colonies can answer for his right hon. Friend perfectly well.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Federation

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement explaining the delay in the implementation of the federation of the West Indies, indicating, in particular, what obstacles now remain to be overcome.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I outlined the next steps in my statement on 2nd February. These could not be taken until all the legislatures concerned had accepted the federal plan in general.

Mr. Hughes: Is it a fact that a conference on this subject will take place next week, and, if that is so, can the Minister say what the agenda will be, who will attend, which Colonies will attend and who the representatives will be?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There has already been an announcement to the effect that my noble Friend Lord Lloyd, the Undersecretary of State, who is at the moment in the West Indies, will be presiding over the conference on the control of movement of persons between member territories of the proposed federation, and this conference, which will open in Trinidad on 13th March and will last until 18th March, will deal with a very important aspect of the proposed federal plan.

Mr. Alport: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether British Guiana and British Honduras will be represented, at any rate by observers, at this conference?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the announcement made clear, this conference is at this stage limited to proposed members of the federation. As to later accessions to the federation, I dealt with that point in the statement which I made on 2nd February.

Citrus Industry

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the numbers employed in growing limes and processing

them, respectively, in Dominica, in each of the last three years.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The estimated number employed in growing limes during 1952 was 6,000, and during 1953 and 1954 5,400. The estimated numbers engaged in processing during these years were 650, 470 and 400.

Mr. Russell: What is the cause of the decline in the numbers employed?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend has a Question on that matter shortly, when I will deal with the point. I am glad to say that, although the lime situation is serious, the increase in banana production has rather more than offset the loss of revenue caused by the drop in lime exports.

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the effect in the British West Indies of placing United Kingdom imports of lime oil and orange juice under open general licence.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Since the easing of the restrictions on United Kingdom imports of lime oil and orange juice prices have declined, so that B.W.I. exporters now have difficulty in selling in this market. The lime-oil industry has been particularly badly hit. I am awaiting further information on these problems from the fact-finding mission of inquiry into the West Indian citrus industry, whose report should be available shortly.

Mr. Russell: Can my right hon. Friend give an indication of the action which is likely to be taken to remedy this situation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must, of course, await the report, but I have already given an undertaking that if the citrus industry as a whole runs into serious difficulty Her Majesty's Government will take effective action to safeguard the position.

Mr. Bottomley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the best way to help West Indian growers today is by a long-term trade agreement? Could not he possibly give it consideration?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am certain we are all anxious to give long-term security, but that by no means presupposes long-term trade agreements.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Teachers' Training College

Major Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made in the building of a new teachers' training college in Cyprus.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): The site and general lay-out have been approved, and financial provision made for building to start this year, as soon as the architects' plans and tenders are completed.

Major Wall: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him for an assurance that he will press forward with this building as quickly as possible, and that he will consider the provision of facilities for the advanced study of science and the arts in the new building, which might form the nucleus of a university college which would be of great value?

Mr. Hopkinson: We are fully aware of the importance of pressing on with this teachers' training college. As regards the suggestion that it might develop into a university college for Cyprus, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply of my noble Friend Viscount Chandos on 29th July, 1953, to a Question. We certainly have the possibility of setting up a university college in Cyprus well in mind, but there are many difficulties.

Broadcasting Service (Licence)

Mr. McAdden: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decision has been taken on the application to provide a broadcast and entertainment relay service in Cyprus.

Mr. Hopkinson: The Cyprus Government already operate a broadcasting service. An application was recently made to the Government by a commercial undertaking for a licence to operate a wired service in Nicosia and certain other towns, and this application is being considered.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend not encourage these broadcasting organisations to give an accurate history of Cyprus as one of their leading features?

Mr. Hopkinson: The Cyprus Broadcasting service has been reorganised. There

is a new Director of Broadcasting, and I am sure that the point of view of my hon. and gallant Friend will be taken into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SOMALILAND (ANGLO-ETHIOPIAN AGREEMENT)

Mr. J. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he will make a statement on the conversations he has held with the delegation from Somaliland which has come to protest against the proposed transfer of certain territories from the United Kingdom to Ethiopia;

(2) what consultations he had with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs before it was decided to draft the Somaliland (Ethiopia) Order in Council, 1955.

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has received from Somaliland about the proposed transfer of territory to Ethiopia.

Mr. J. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will postpone the coming into operation of the Somaliland (Ethiopia) Order in Council, 1955, until the people who will be forced to leave the Commonwealth on account of it have had an adequate opportunity of expressing their views.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With the permission of the hon. Members concerned, I propose to defer my answer until the end of Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Kikuyu Reserves

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the Kenya Government have forcibly removed large numbers of Kikuyu from Nairobi to the reserves, despite the fact that they are known to be innocent of any offence; that they have neither work nor the means of subsistence; and if he will take immediate steps to end this policy and substitute for it one which will provide the people with both work and adequate food.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. Only those found in Nairobi without pass books, or who have committed other offences, have been moved to the reserves, where relief work is provided for those in need.

Mr. Collins: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that acts of gross injustice of this kind, which are reported by reliable people like members of the Church and judges, make it impossible for matters in Kenya to be peacefully settled? Will he say what representations he makes to the Government of Kenya in matters of this kind?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member's supplementary question must have been arranged in his mind before he heard my answer.

Mr. Bottomley: When is the Secretary of State going to consider proposals that are put to him from this side of the House? Is he not aware that the only way to end the emergency in Kenya is to provide effective African leadership? Would he give consideration to the convening of a conference in London and inviting equal numbers of Europeans, Asians and Africans?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I gave a very long answer to him a few days ago in regard to a large number of suggestions that had been made by the Parliamentary Commission, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. I fully recognise the importance of getting good African leadership. The multi-racial Government set up by my predecessor, Lord Chandos, is an indication of the importance that we attach to it.

Mr. Bottomley: In the debate on Kenya last week the Secretary of State was asked a particular thing about calling a conference and he gave no answer. He has given no answer now. Will he not try to consider the propositions put to him?

Financial Assistance

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent further financial help will be made to the Government of Kenya in the near future.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I propose to make a statement on Kenya at the end of Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND (CONSTITUTION)

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why it was not found possible to offer six places for unofficial African members in the new constitutional proposals for Nyasaland.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that his proposed constitutional reforms for Nyasaland are unsatisfactory to responsible African opinion in this colony; and why he does not feel able to grant parity of representation for African unofficial members with Europeans and Asians in the Legislative Council.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I recognise that the proposals for the revision of the Nyasaland constitution fall short of the wishes of some of the leaders of the African community, but I consider that the increase of African unofficial membership of Legislative Council from three to five, as compared with a total unofficial membership of six for the other two major communities, represents a reasonable step forward at the present stage.

Mrs. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable opinion among Africans in Nyasaland that this refusal to give parity with non-Africans is due to pressure from the Rhodesians and that it makes the position under Federation more difficult? What is the reason for not meeting what most of us consider a reasonable request?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Lady should remember that it is only five years since the first African member was appointed to the Legislative Council. We must be aware of the dangers of forcing the pace in political development. In regard to the proposals that have been put forward, I can assure the hon. Member that they would have been put forward even if there had been no Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

Mr. Johnson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement he made last week was perfectly scandalous and is deemed so not by some, but, indeed, by all Africans in the Colony? Why, having given the vote to Asians and Euopeans, can we not give the vote to some Africans on a qualification such


as income or education? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman consider that proposal?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the statement which I have made will, on reflection, commend itself to more Africans than, I recognise, welcomed it at the time. We should all be wise to await the report of the inter-racial conference which is taking place at the present time and from which more information may well be gleaned.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the recent riots in. Sierra Leone.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have at present nothing to add to the statement which I made on Thursday last.

Mr. Reid: Have the riots died down? In case of very serious trouble are sufficient forces under the control of the Government locally without calling in white troops?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I announced, there is to be an inquiry. I am completing the suggested membership of that inquiry, and it would be wise to wait until I make an announcement.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-INDIAN TRADE (COTTON GOODS)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Prime Minister what discussions took place with the Prime Minister of India during his visit about trade in cotton goods between India and the United Kingdom; and what conclusions were reached.

The Prime Minister: The Minister of State in the Board of Trade during his recent visit to Delhi in January had long and frank discussions with Indian Ministers on this subject, and there was no reason therefore for raising the matter afresh with the Indian Prime Minister in the limited time at his disposal.

Mr. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of State stated last week in Manchester that he had had no negotiations on this question in Delhi?

Is he further aware of the very deep state of feeling in Lancashire on this matter, and will the right hon. Gentleman initiate high-level and not low-level discussions on the matter?

The Prime Minister: I did not use in my answer the word "negotiation." "Discussion" was the word I used, which is not the same thing. As to the general issue, I need scarcely say how gravely the condition of the cotton trade and its good fortune concern Her Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (BROADCAST DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister why Her Majesty's Government informed the British Broadcasting Corporation that a debate on defence would take place in the House during the week ending Friday 4th March before announcing this business to the House itself.

The Prime Minister: In accordance with the practice, which has existed by agreement between the B.B.C. and the major political parties for a number of years, the B.B.C. avoids broadcasting discussions on an issue when it is to be debated in Parliament within a fortnight. Her Majesty's Government is therefore prepared to give what information it can if inquiries are made by the B.B.C. about the likelihood of a debate on a particular subject.
When a representative of the B.B.C. inquired, he was accordingly told that a debate is to be expected next week, as might have reasonably been foreseen, since in past years the debate has usually followed about 12 days after publication of the Defence White Paper.

Mr. Warbey: While this precedent may assist in a particular case, like the defence debate, are there not other cases in which it is highly improper that an outside organisation should be acquainted with the business of this House before hon. Members? Is not this rule ultra vires, because it can only be operated during the 14-day period by infringing the rights of hon. Members? Would it not be more sensible to cut down the period to two or three days, which might be reasonable when important debates are to take place?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. On the whole it will be found to be in the long interests of the House of Commons to observe the practice which has been observed for a considerable time.

Mr. Grimond: Will not the Prime Minister reconsider this matter? Could it not be left to the good sense of the B.B.C. to exercise its discretion?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I will never reconsider it. It would be shocking to have debates in this House forestalled time after time by expressions of opinion by persons who had not the status or responsibility of Members of Parliament.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the debates in this House are frequently forestalled by discussions in the Press, and is there very much to lose by having similar discussions on the radio or on television? While, obviously, discretion must be exercised in discussions of this kind on the radio when, for example, industrial disputes are involved, surely when merely political issues are involved there can be no objection?

The Prime Minister: On the contrary, I have always attached great importance to Parliament and to the House of Commons. I am quite sure that the bringing on of exciting debates in these vast, new robot organisations of television and B.B.C. broadcasting, to take place before a debate in this House, might have very deleterious effects upon our general interests, and that hon. Members should be considering the interests of the House of Commons, to whom we all owe a lot.

Mr. Elliot: Does not this all arise from the monopoly position of the B.B.C, and is it not, therefore, a desirable thing that alternative channels should be opened up?

Mr. Shinwell: Does not what the right hon. Gentleman has said to the House mean just this—that the B.B.C. is not an independent authority but is subject to the will of the Government?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This is not a question of the will of the Government, but an arrangement which was reached after a good deal of thought between the leaders of both parties and the principal people in both parties. It is easy to turn against these arrangements on any particular occasion, but, honestly,

I think that the House would be well advised to stay where it is before it yields up a great deal of the significance and dignity of the debates.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to apply this principle which he has enunciated to commercial television as well, when it starts?

The Prime Minister: I certainly think that it should be the same all round.

KENYA (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will, with permission, now answer Question No. 44.
As the House is aware, Her Majesty's Government made available this year £11½million to the Government of Kenya towards meeting the cost of the Emergency. As a result of economies coupled with improved revenues in Kenya, the actual figure of assistance drawn will be £11 million.
In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have now reviewed Kenya's financial prospects for the forthcoming year. As far as can be foreseen, Emergency expenditure in 1955–56 is likely to be in the region of £16 million, towards which Kenya will be able to provide only £2 million from her own resources. Even if it should prove possible, as we all hope, to reduce the present scale of military operations during this period, a large part of the Emergency expenditure will still continue on such items as the police, closer administration and the work of rehabilitation.
Subject therefore to the approval of Parliament, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to provide a further grant of £10 million and a further interest-free loan of £4 million to Kenya in the United Kingdom financial year 1955–56. This assistance will be called upon only to the extent that it proves to be needed and the Kenya Government will be expected to continue to take every practical step to increase their own revenues in order to meet their commitments.

Mr. Braine: Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of the £14 million


is likely to be spent on agricultural development in African areas, and, in view of the present shortage, whether special efforts will be made to help Kenya to recruit additional agricultural officers?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very well aware of the need for agricultural development, and under the Swynnerton Plan a very large sum of United Kingdom money is being made available for African agriculture. The sum which I have been speaking about today is for the emergency, but by granting it the United Kingdom Government will, of course, release the revenues of Kenya herself for further development in Kenya.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Am I to understand that this will form part of a Supplementary Estimate in the near future, and that we shall have an opportunity of debating it? May I ask the Secretary of State if I understood him aright when he said that Kenya could not provide, out of its own resources, more than £2 million, and that we propose to give—and we all want to give—to help with the emergency and reconstruction £16 million? Will he consider again whether Kenya itself and her people are making their due contributions towards the cost of the emergency, in view of the still heavy burden placed upon us?
May I also ask him a further question? I am sure that all of us, including the Secretary of State, have been disturbed by the news which we have received from Kenya recently about confusion and divided counsels; and, indeed, it seems to us that large sections of the population are seeking to undermine the multi-racial Government which this House has recommended. Further, does he not think that the time has come when, either in this country or in Kenya, he should call together in conference representatives of all communities in order to ensure that in the days that lie ahead there is in Kenya a united leadership, without which the emergency can never be brought to an end? May I also ask him if he will give a little consideration to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley)?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should not be in order if I dealt at length with the last part of the supplementary question

arising out of the statement which I have just made. In fairness to the taxpayers of Kenya and to the Europeans, among others, I must point out that in the April Budget in Kenya last year the taxation increases, of which by far the largest was the Income Tax increase, has enabled the Government of Kenya not to call upon the full assistance which we granted in 1954–55. Income Tax in Kenya at the highest rate is 16s. in the £. There are no free hospitals, no free educational services, and the Europeans themselves, who desperately need to attract more capital and manpower, have been in the front line for over two years.

Mr. Griffiths: May I repeat the second part of my supplementary question? Since an announcement is made about future help, I should have thought that the question I put was quite in order for the Secretary of State to answer.

Mr. Speaker: As I understand, the statement was merely about financial arrangements between the two countries, and I think that the matter which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned might well be the subject of a larger debate.

Mr. Bottomley: In the debate on Kenya last week, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Secretary of State to answer a particular question. Today, in a supplementary question, I again asked him for an answer and now that he refuses, quite rightly on finance, to answer the proposition, may I seek your guidance as to how it is possible to get an answer from the Secretary of State?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the answer to that question must be to advise the right hon. Gentleman to choose the right opportunity.

Mr. Alport: Will my right hon. Friend make available, before the debate on the Supplementary Estimate takes place, a calculation as to the relative incidence of direct and indirect taxation on the taxpayer in Kenya, compared with the taxpayer in this country, bearing in mind the value of the social services received by the taxpayer in this country?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly look at that.

BRITISH SOMALILAND (ANGLO-ETHIOPIAN AGREEMENT)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will now, with permission, Mr. Speaker, answer Questions Nos. 37, 63, 69 and 71.
The Somaliland (Ethiopia) Order in Council, 1955, makes provision for the exercise by the Protectorate authorities and courts of the powers accorded by an Agreement concluded between the Ethiopian Government and Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom on 29th November, 1954. I have, of course, throughout been in the closest contact with the Foreign Secretary, who signed the Agreement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
The Agreement provides for the withdrawal of British Military Administration from certain areas of Ethiopia bordering on the Somaliland Protectorate known as the Haud and the Reserved Areas. Although these areas are used predominantly by members of' British protected tribes from the Somaliland Protectorate they have been Ethiopian territory in international law since the Anglo-Ethiopian Treaty of 1897. No British territory is, therefore, being transferred to Ethiopia. The Wartime Agreement of 1944, by virtue of which the areas are under British Military Administration, was made without prejudice to Ethiopian sovereignty and could, in fact, be terminated by either side at three months' notice.
Last year the Ethiopian. Government indicated that they wished to assume the full exercise of their sovereignty in the areas at an early date and the negotiations which followed resulted in the Agreement of last November. During the negotiation of that Agreement, Her Majesty's Government had constantly in mind the interests of the Somali tribes who use the areas and were able to secure certain very important rights for the Protectorate Government and for the tribes from the Somaliland Protectorate grazing in the areas. In view of the fact that the areas were Ethiopian in international law it was not, however, possible to arrange for the continuance of British occupation.
The news of the Agreement has given rise to widespread feeling in Somaliland and a delegation was sent to see me to

protest against the Agreement and to secure a postponement of its implementation. The delegation put their point of view with dignity and force and made abundantly clear the value that they attach to being under British administration. I have had no alternative but to inform them that Her Majesty's Government must abide by their obligations in international law. I have made clear to them what those obligations are, and have told them that there can be no question of Her Majesty's Government's repudiating international agreements.
Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered the proposal of the delegation that the date of the bringing into force of the Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement of November, 1954, should be postponed. Her Majesty's Government asked the Ethiopian Government whether they would be prepared to consider a postponement. The Ethiopian Government have felt unable to agree that the handover should be postponed beyond the date laid down in the Agreement, namely, 28th February.
I am satisfied that the arrangements made with the Ethiopian Government are the best that could be made against the background of our international obligations, and in negotiations regarding the arrangements for the hand-over the Ethiopian Government have given a number of assurances on such subjects as customs and property rights which will, I hope, be of benefit to the Somali tribes concerned. I have urged on the delegation how important it is, in the interests of the British Protected tribes, that the new Agreement should work as smoothly as possible in order that they may benefit to the full from the rights which the agreement accords them

Mr. Dugdale: The right hon. Gentleman has referred on a number of occasions to international rights. Does he not agree that one of the great difficulties with which he is now faced is that there are, in fact, two Agreements—one, the Agreement with Ethiopia of 1897 and the other, the earlier Agreement with the Somalis which stated that,
influenced by motives of friendship and with a desire to conform to the principles on which the great British Government is conducted,
they agreed to accept British protection? As there are these two contrary Agreements, will he not again ask the Ethiopian


Government to postpone the carrying into force of this Agreement until such time as it can be brought before the International Court for its opinion?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is not possible. It would be quite wrong to hold out any suggestion of that kind and not in the long-term interests of the British protected people themselves. I think that in many ways the 1897 Treaty with Ethiopia was unfortunate, but it suffered from our limited knowledge of Somaliland at the time and we must see it against a background of that knowledge and of the expansionist tendencies of Ethiopia in 1897. It is true that, because of the British military occupation since 1944, many people had imagined that the status quo could continue indefinitely, but the Ethiopians could have repudiated the Treaty at three months' notice and then our protected people would not have had the very solid rights which the new Agreement has given them.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask whether any consideration has been given to negotiations about the boundaries with Ethiopia? I recall that the previous troubles with Ethiopia seemed to arise out of very artificial boundaries among the tribes, their grazing rights and wells, etc. Has no attempt been made possibly to modify the position, instead of standing on international law, and to negotiate more reasonable boundaries in this area?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, the boundaries of the Haud and Reserved areas have been laid down for some time. Small adjustments in those boundaries would not have met the fears of the Somali tribes. It appeared to us to be much more important, while not disputing the undeniable Ethiopian sovereignty, to concentrate on getting protection of the grazing rights. Up to now the only protection in law which the tribes had was the right to cross the frontier for purposes of grazing. We have now got the grazing rights guaranteed in perpetuity, with a number of other important rights. Her Majesty's Government have every confidence that the Ethiopian Government will observe the Treaty in the spirit as well as in the letter. While recognising, as I do, that the Somali people do not like this arrangement, I hope they will do their utmost to see that the situation is handled in a calm and statesmanlike way.

Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House the area and the population involved, and whether there will be any change in citizenship by the population?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There would be neither. There is no transfer of British territory to Ethiopia and there is no change of British citizenship. The numbers involved vary, but I believe that about 300,000 people go from the Somali-land Protectorate into Ethiopian territory for grazing and will continue to do so under the guaranteed rights secured by this Agreement.

Mr. Willey: Is not the Secretary of State being unduly dogmatic? This is a difficult and obscure question. As he himself has said, it is an involved question, but in view of the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, does he not think that there is still an opportunity to widen the discussions and to postpone this decision?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All these questions were gone into during the very protracted negotiations which began at Addis Ababa and were continued in London at the highest level. I would certainly not be dogmatic about this very human problem, which, I can assure the House, has given me very great anxiety, not lessened by the high bearing and courage of the delegation. Very few tasks which it has fallen to me to do were less agreeable than recognising international obligations, as I have been bound to do in this field.

Mr. Callaghan: How can an Agreement be satisfactory under which tribes graze for part of the year on one side of an international frontier and for the other part of the year on the other side of the frontier? If it is the case, as I understand it is, that these Somali tribes challenge the Agreement of 1897 and claim that their own Agreement with Her Majesty's Government of 1884 overrides it, why should not Her Majesty's Government themselves take the initiative in notifying the Ethiopian Government that the Agreement has not yet come into force—it will not come into force until 28th February, next Monday—and that they themselves will postpone its operation until such time as the dispute about the two treaties has been referred to the International Court of Justice?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Every aspect of this problem was gone into most carefully during the negotiations and I am afraid that it is impossible to reopen them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The hon. Member said that it would be difficult to imagine tribes grazing for one part of the year on one side of an international boundary and for the other part of the year on the other side of the boundary, but I think he is a little inclined to look at the problems of Africa through the eyes of South Wales.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: On the last part of the question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), could the Secretary of State tell us whether, if this dispute were taken to the International Court of Justice at The Hague—on whose decision we should be bound to rely—the decision which the Government have made would be upheld? Are we satisfied that that would be the result?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When we made the military agreement in 1944, under which the present British Administration have been conducting their affairs, it was clearly recognised that this was Ethiopian territory. We have never disputed it. I regret the Treaty of 1897 but, like much that has happened before, it is impossible to undo it.

Captain Waterhouse: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in the course of the negotiations, he made any attempt to meet the Ethiopian position either by purchase or a long lease?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All other possible solutions were gone into. The Ethiopians attach immense importance to their sovereignty which, in a number of successive treaties, we never disputed.

Mr. J. Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the 1881 Agreement was the only one made with the Sultans of Somaliland and the 1897 Agreement was made without their consent? Therefore, is it lawful to hand over to Abyssinia about 25,000 square miles without the consent of the inhabitants?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If we were doing that now it would be something to which we should all apply our minds. I have no doubt what would be my answer to it, but the 1897 Agreement defined Ethiopian

territory in these areas and I have no right to go back on that.

Mr. Alport: On what date was the information of the nature of the negotiations and Agreement conveyed by the Administration to the sheikh of the tribes concerned?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On 5th January—[HON. MEMBERS: "This year?"]—this year. As to the question of consultation, I must make it plain that in the view of Her Majesty's Government it would not have been fair to ask Somali leaders to share responsibility for a decision that was bound to be unpopular and was made necessary by the international obligations of Her Majesty's Government. The date of 5th January was chosen to enable the Somali Government to make arrangements for the proper dissemination of the news of the Agreement among the nomadic tribesmen and as far as possible by acquainting the district officers of its terms to prevent garbled accounts and false rumours prevailing.

Mr. Callaghan: As the Agreement was made on 29th November, why was it not conveyed to the Sultans until January? Does the right hon. Gentleman think it reasonable that they should be required to make different arrangements with a notice of less than seven weeks when their whole future prospects are at stake and they are being handed over to another country?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member must not say that they are being handed over to another country. I am delighted to find this pride in the British Commonwealth and I pay great attention to it, but the hon. Member is not right in saying that they are being handed over to another country. Their rights of grazing in another country are, by this Agreement, being legally protected. I have dealt with the point about delay in notifying the people in the reply I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport).

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Will these important rights of pasturage and of water be enforceable in the Ethiopian courts? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the Ethiopian authorities have the means and ability to secure the enjoyment of these rights by the tribes concerned?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We attach the greatest importance to this undertaking being carried out in the letter and the spirit. The Ethiopians are bound to consult the British liaison officer about their relations with the tribes. The Agreement secures a whole number of rights for our people which, I hope, hon. Members will read carefully before they make up their minds on this matter. If there are disputes between the members of the tribes they will be settled in British courts in the Protectorate, but disputes involving Ethiopians and the tribes will be decided in Ethiopian courts. We have every confidence that the Ethiopian Government, recognising the great importance we attach to the scrupulous observance of the Agreement, will do so strictly.

Mr. Dugdale: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is another Government statement to be made.

Later—

Mr. Dugdale: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The decision of Her Majesty's Government to hand over certain territories now administered by the British Government to the Government of Ethiopia.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The decision of Her Majesty's Government to hand over certain territories now administered by the British Government to the Government of Ethiopia.
I have carefully considered this matter and I cannot find that it comes within Standing Order No. 9. Having listened to the Minister's statement, it seems to me that in this case Her Majesty's Ministers, in acting as they have done, consider themselves bound by international law. To that extent, their responsibility for their action is diminished.
I also would point out that the Treaty has been issued as a White Paper and was in the Vote Office on 5th January, and has been in the hands of hon. Members at any rate since 25th January, when the House resumed. I cannot believe that the matter is urgent in that sense. It

seems to me that the Ministers are merely carrying out treaty obligations and that this is not a matter which comes within the Standing Order.

Mr. Dugdale: The only point that I want to introduce, Sir, is that there are two sets of obligations in international law, and it is because of the difference between those two in international law that I think the matter ought to be fully discussed.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that international law applies to agreements between States. If I understood the Secretary of State aright, it has been the Government's view for a long time that we were bound by a specific Treaty with Ethiopia, and, indeed, we were subject to eviction recently at three months' notice. I cannot find that the matter comes within the Standing Order.

Mr. Callaghan: May I put one further consideration to you, Mr. Speaker? The Agreement comes into force next Monday and it is, surely, within the competence of either party to propose to postpone it. Is there any reason why the Government should not take that initiative in order to submit themselves to the International Court of Justice on the ground that here is a dispute that should be resolved? If we had not raised this matter earlier, would you not consider it to be sufficient reason that negotiations were taking place in London between the tribesmen and the Colonial Secretary, who, apparently, was asking Ethiopia to postpone the Agreement, and none of us wished to prejudice his success in that?

Mr. Speaker: I think I follow what the hon. Member meant. The actual Treaty stipulates the date of coming into operation as 28th February, and that has been known. On the second point, I understood from the Colonial Secretary's statement—although I stand to be corrected—that the Government had asked the Ethiopian Government to postpone the commencement of the Agreement, but that the Ethiopian Government had refused; they are quite within their rights in so doing. I find that the matter is one of international law and not within the Standing Order.

Mr. Bowles: The Treaty comes into force in about seven days' time, Mr. Speaker. It has never been ratified by


this House. What opportunity are we to have to discuss it? If the House did not like it, the Government would fall, quite apart from whether they are right or wrong in international law.

Mr. Speaker: This is a matter which rests with the House, and it lies within the power of the House to dismiss the Government which has concluded this Agreement.

Mr. Bowles: Let us do that.

SNOWSTORM, HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): It may be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if I make a brief statement about the position in the northern counties of Scotland.
Heavy falls of snow, high winds and exceptionally severe frost have created a situation of some difficulty over much of the Highlands and Islands area. In particular, the poor harvest and the exhaustion of supplies in the earlier blizzard have caused a serious shortage of fodder; and as the sheep are weak after a long period of hard weather there is a danger of serious loss.
The local authorities, their staffs, and the police are doing their utmost to restore communications and organise relief where it is needed; and the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and ships of the Fishery Protection Service are again co-operating in the delivery of supplies—particularly fodder—and in dealing with cases of illness and casualties.

Mr. Elliot: On a point of order. A statement of great importance to Scotland is being made and it is very difficult to follow it, Sir. May I ask you whether it would be possible to secure silence?

Mr. Stewart: Between them the two Services—the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force—up to midnight on 22nd-23rd have carried out 34 general and six special reconnaissances and 18 medical sorties with a total flying time of 87 hours.
The fishery cruiser "Minna" was sent to Shetland and was able on 20th February to deliver five tons of stores and mails to Foula, which had been cut off for 48 days; and on 21st February she

took mails and provisions to places on the west coast of Shetland. The fishery cruiser "Norna" was sent to Orkney and the fishery cruiser "Vaila" to Stornoway, but no calls on the services of these cruisers have so far been made, although they will continue to stand by.
There has on this occasion been considerable interruption of telephone services and electricity supplies, but I am glad to say that, as a result of the admirable work of the staffs of the Post Office and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board the situation has largely been restored. By this morning only five telephone exchanges (four in Orkney and one in Shetland) remain isolated, although many subscribers' lines are still out of order. Except for an area between Dunnett and John O'Groats all main electricity lines are now functioning.
We shall, of course, continue to keep in the closest touch with the situation. In the meantime, I know that the House would wish me to express, on behalf not only of Her Majesty's Government but of this House, our sympathy with the people of the areas concerned and our appreciation of the work of all who are helping to restore communications and maintain essential services there.

Mr. Woodburn: I should like to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with this expression of sympathy and appreciation of the splendid work that is being done. My information is that the situation in the North is quite unprecedented and that the disaster to sheep is likely to be as bad as, if not worse, than that in 1947. It may cause trouble and a diminution of the sheep population for many years to come. Are the Government contemplating that the people who have suffered in this storm, and the farmers who have been thrown back in the development of the stock population in the North of Scotland, should get special assistance? It will be extremely difficult for them to carry on if they are left to bear the burden of these unprecedented natural phenomena.

Mr. Stewart: It is because we thought the situation was more serious that this statement was made today. As to possible loss, it is not easy to decide on policy until we are able to determine what is the loss. We shall have to wait a little


time, I am afraid, because as yet we do not know.

Mr. Ross: While congratulating the Government on the action taken, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not think it would have been far better if some other Minister had made this statement, bearing in mind that he took it upon himself last time we had bad weather to go to the North of Scotland and lecture the people for improvidence in not stocking up with supplies?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member should read what I said.

Mr. Ross: I did.

Mr. Grimond: I should like to join in hoping that some assistance will be given over sheep losses. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that local authorities have been badly strained by the heavy expenditure involved in clearing snow from the roads and also the need for alternative communication to some of the remote districts and islands, as telephone wires are not available?

Mr. John MacLeod: Can my hon. Friend give a figure for the cost of clearing the snow and the heavy burden of keeping communications open in the North at the present time? My hon. Friend will realise that a tremendous burden is imposed upon the people in the area. Is modern equipment being sent there to clear the important roads?

Mr. Stewart: I am not able at present to state the cost. With regard to the provision of modern equipment, other parts of the country, unfortunately, are also troubled by snow.

Mr. Manuel: With regard to the dropping from helicopters of feeding stuffs for sheep and cattle, can the Under-Secretary say what will be the cost to crofters and farmers compared with the ordinary cost of transport if there had been no snow?

Mr. Stewart: The cost will be just the same.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

AGRICULTURE

Sir I. Fraser: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 11th March, I shall call attention to agriculture, and move a Resolution.

POLITICAL PARTIES (ACCOUNTS)

Mr. Mellish: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 11th March, I shall call attention to the need for legislation to ensure that all political parties issue annual accounts showing the total sources of their income, and move a Resolution.

EQUAL PAY (TEACHERS)

Mr. Short: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 11th March, I shall call attention to the need to consider the extension of equal pay to women in the teaching service, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

TOWN POLLS

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to town polls and town meetings.
This Motion relates to a very simple Bill, designed to redress an anomaly which has existed since 1872. Until 1872, corporations had no power whatever to promote Bills. They were then given the power subject to the approval of local government electors. This approval was to be shown in the form of town meetings specially convened for the purpose and later, if it was requisitioned, by over a hundred voters in a town poll.
That, no doubt, was a practical proposition when the arrangements were first made, when the franchise, and particularly the local government franchise, was exceedingly limited and did not amount to more than a few thousand electors in any town. When, later, rural district councils and county councils wished to have powers to promote Bills, they were not obliged to hold town meetings and town polls because it was thought that this was an anachronistic method and entirely unnecessary because of all the other safeguards that existed.
The London County Council today is not required to hold town meetings or polls, nor, indeed, are the Metropolitan Boroughs if they have not paid for the cost of the promotion of a Bill but have allowed the London County Council to pay for it for them.
As far as boroughs and urban districts are concerned, these provisions have continued with ludicrous effects. In Birmingham, for example, where the electorate is about 780,000 and the population is 1,250,000, the town hall holds only 2,000 people; so it is not possible to get a town meeting of the entire electorate of Birmingham, and it never was and never will be. The result is that when the town poll is 'held very little interest is shown by the people as a whole and only a very small proportion of the electorate votes.
In 1948, for example, only 6·7 per cent. of the Birmingham electorate voted to throw out two Clauses of a Bill. In 1954, only 3·8 per cent. of the electorate

voted to approve one opposed Clause and to throw out five Clauses. In 1937, fewer than a hundred people attended a town meeting in Sheffield, for example, and in 1949 only twenty attended a town meeting in Leicester. To take at random the example of Nottingham, over the last twenty years the average percentage as voters at town polls has been only 7 per cent.
The cost of promoting town meetings and town polls is very heavy on a local authority and the average cost in Birmingham, for instance, is £5,000 for each poll. Usually, this is more than half the total cost of promoting the Bill in question and is a quite unnecessary expenditure. What happens is that a few particularly interested parties, whether they are for or against a contested Clause or a contested Bill, can defeat the will of the council and the will of the electorate by taking energetic methods and raising a little money for necessary propaganda.
It may be argued that on a matter affecting the electorate the entire electorate should vote on all these questions at town polls. I really do not see any reason why it should. The electors already vote once a year in the municipal elections, and they elect or re-elect their councillors. That ought to be a sufficient safeguard and watch over the doings of the council. When they vote in municipal elections they entrust the management of their city to those whom they elect, and they do not expect continually to have to deliberate detailed issues.
We in this House do not think that our power should be superseded by referendums from time to time, and there is no reason why a town council should have to submit to frequent referendums on what it is doing, and I do not think that town councils' management requires such action.
The issues on which the electorate is required to vote are far too complicated to be grasped without considerable study. I have here, for example, the ballot sheet in connection with the Birmingham Corporation Bill, 1954. It contains six items. I shall read only one, because it is typical of the others. The voters are required to vote for or against each of the six propositions. Here is the first:
That the Electors of the City of Birmingham hereby approve the promotion by the


Council of that City of Clause 14 (as to purchase of land for purposes relating to redevelopment of areas of bad layout and obsolete development) of the Birmingham Corporation Bill, 1954, together with so much of the preamble and of the other Parts of the Bill as relates or is ancillary to that Clause.
I do not think it is reasonable to require municipal voters to answer a series of six items put in this form. They would all have to bring a copy of the Bill with them to understand each of the items, and they would have to discuss the matter with officials of the town council, and it is not reasonable to expect them to do so, and, of course, they do not do so. Incidentally, the Corporation, in this particular case, arranged for explanatory statements to be distributed at 650 places in the city, and advertised in four separate newspapers on three different occasions. The result of it all was that only 3·8 per cent. of the electorate thought they understood the matter sufficiently well to vote, and I am not at all surprised.
It has long been recognised that it makes no sense whatever for borough and urban district councils to go through all this procedure. The Association of Municipal Corporations has long been attempting to get the law altered. There is no political issue in this matter. Commissions composed of both, indeed all three, political parties have frequently recommended that these provisions should be done away with. The Royal Commission on Local Government recommended, in 1929, in its Final Report, that town polls and town meetings should be abolished. In 1933, the Chelmsford Local Government and Public Health Consolidation Committee, the Committee presided over by Lord Chelmsford, endorsed the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Local Government, but nothing yet has happened about it.
A Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons is now sitting to consider what alterations, if any, are desirable to the practices and Standing Orders of the two Houses relating to private legislation. It may have the power in its terms of reference to consider this matter. It may be that it has not that power. It is a questionable point, and I myself should not like to venture an opinion upon it, but, whether it has or has not, this is such a simple matter, which has been reported upon by high-powered commissions in the last 30 years, both of which recommended

sharply and definitely that this provision relating to town polls should be abolished, that I do not think it would be necessary to require the Joint Committee to deliberate at great length on a matter which has been agreed upon by so many eminent authorities of different parties.
All that is required is a simple Bill to delete Section 255 of the Local Government Act, 1933, and the Ninth Schedule which refers to that section. After that is done there will still be adequate safeguards against the abuse of powers. In the first place, a local authority would still have to have the promotion of any Bill supported by a majority of all the members of the local authority, not merely a majority of all those present. It would still have to give ample notice in the local newspapers of its intention to promote a Bill, so that objections could be made.
Objectors could still object to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and the Minister of Housing and Local Government still would have to give his approval to the promotion of such a Bill. After the Bill has been deposited the local authority would still have to have another meeting at which a majority of the members would have to approve the Bill. After all these processes have been gone through, the Bill would have to go through a Committee of this House, could be debated on Second Reading, could still be altered.
All these arrangements are considered adequate safeguards for county councils and rural district councils, and I do not think it is right to penalise large towns, authorities far bigger than some of the county councils and rural district councils, by making them go through this antiquated procedure, which everybody agrees is quite unnecessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wyatt, Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Robert Jenkins, Mr. Usborne, Mr. Wheeldon and Wing Commander Bullus.

TOWN POLLS

Bill to amend the law relating to town polls and town meetings, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 4th March, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT (BORROWING POWERS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the limit imposed by paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twenty-six of the Transport Act, 1953, on the amount outstanding in respect of borrowings of the British Transport Commission, it is expedient to authorise such increased charges on the Consolidated Fund and payments into the Exchequer under that Act and the Transport Act, 1947, as may, by reason of the Treasury's power to give guarantees in connection with the borrowings of the British Transport Commission, result from increasing the said limit from two hundred and seventy-five million pounds to six hundred million pounds.

Resolution agreed to.

TRANSPORT (BORROWING POWERS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[SIR CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF BORROWING POWERS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I understand that it will not be in order to go into detail about how the money which is required by the railways is to be raised, but the Clause re-enacts the provision of the 1947 Act about the Treasury guarantee. That implies that the money will be raised by redeemable loans at a fixed interest rate which will be a prior charge. It is my contention that it is wrong. It seems to me quite contrary to the view which has been put forward so often from the benches opposite that the railways are a commercial enterprise. If that view is accepted, this additional money for which the railways are asking should either be raised in the market without a Treasury guarantee, though that may well be difficult, or else the Chancellor should subscribe to what would in fact be an equity issue by the railways.
If the railways have to borrow all the new capital envisaged by this scheme at 3½ per cent. interest or thereabouts as a prior charge, they will have to find, with

interest and sinking fund, about £40 million a year, profit or no profit. It would be quite wrong, I believe, from the point of view of the railways and of control by the House of public finance, to arrange for money to be raised in that way. The argument of the Treasury will be that unless it insists upon the interest on the loan being paid as a prior charge it will never get anything out of the railways, because, however well they do, they will not declare a dividend.
That is a grave reflection on the views of both the other parties. It is a reflection on the Socialist Party view that there should be public control of nationalised industries, because this is an admission that there cannot be public control. It is a reflection upon the Conservative point of view that the railways can be run as a business enterprise. I ask the Committee to consider whether part of the trouble into which we are running on the railways is not caused by the fact that the railways have been saddled with a very large prior charge which they have to meet, profit or loss.
The Chancellor has been playing the part of the wicked money lender to the optimistic heir, telling the railways to get all the diesels they want, to do up the stations, and to order immense quantities of rolling stock and he will guarantee that they will get the money. But there is this little matter of 3½ per cent. to be met year in, year out, profit or not. Are we not now running into the trouble with which the railways have had so much difficulty in the past and from another bout of which they are just emerging?
There will be a very small margin even on the figures put forward by the Commission. The railways put forward a figure of £85 million as the profit from new schemes, and against that there are additional charges for sinking fund, and so on, of about £80 million. It is a very small margin and the scheme is full of unknowns. All that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation could give the House on Second Reading was a pious hope that if we passed the Bill the Commission would succeed. The House of Commons has not been given figures which would give it great faith in the scheme. I am not arguing against the scheme, but I am saying that, whatever one's views on the railways, it is wrong


to finance such nebulous proposals by a fixed prior charge.
We have to give much more consideration to the means by which Parliament can exercise control over nationalised industries. The question of how a nationalised industry should raise capital is something to which we have not given much attention. It is a matter of considerable importance in connection with ultimate control and the right use of resources. The Committee should urge upon the Government that they do not saddle the railways with this charge, but that they behave according to the normal tenets of ownership, that if the nation wants to take over the railways it should take over the risk, and that there should be an equity issue which, if it is not taken up by the normal market, should be taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I want to ask some questions which, obviously, cannot be answered now because I have not given the Minister notice. They are localised and concerned only with Lincoln. The inland waterways leading to Lincoln are not being used at present as efficiently and as often as they should be. I have said before in this Chamber that the electric power plant is on the edge of a navigable river and is well connected with the coal fields by inland waterways and yet nearly all the coal is carried by rail. That fact is relevant not only to the whole question of the use of inland waterways but to a particular Lincoln problem, because all the coal which goes into the power station is carried across the two principal streets of the city.
The railways for a long time viewed with suspicion any interest that a Member of Parliament took in the problem of Lincoln's level crossings. Only a few years ago when I asked if I might go one morning and look over these railway installations, I was given a very curt answer from the top of the headquarters of British Railways, saying that those concerned doubted the purpose of my visit and would not give me any facilities. That was a completely different attitude from that of the managements of other industries and undertakings—public and private—in my constituency which welcomed me whenever I went to look at their plants.
Recently, however, the railways have been most helpful, not only to me personally. They have re-routed their iron ore trains so that they do not cross Lincoln's two main streets. That is a great achievement, but if they made more use of inland waterways, they would lessen the burden on the railways which cross the main streets.
There is a further point about which I should like some information. How much of the money provided under the Bill will be used on schemes such as that for the improvement of the level crossings in the High Street?

Mr. David Renton: On a point of order. I am very reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, because he is making a very interesting speech, but it seems to me that the Clause deals with only two points. The first is the maximum limit of the Commission's borrowing powers and the second whether there should be a Treasury guarantee. If we are able to discuss matters as widely as has the hon. Member, it might be of great benefit to many of us. Could we have your guidance, Sir Charles?

Mr. Ernest Davies: Further to that point of order. Is it not a fact that if we are discussing increasing the borrowing powers of the Commission, we want to know how the money will be spent? I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) is suggesting how the money could be invested in remunerative ways.

Mr. de Freitas: Would you bear in mind, Sir Charles, that I was expressly saying that the Bill provides this money and I was asking whether it was to be used for projects such as level crossings in the City of Lincoln? I was not referring to any road schemes but only to level crossings, one of which was blocked up last Tuesday and caused chaos.

The Chairman: I think that what the hon. Member said was all right and that at seven o'clock he will have another opportunity of saying it. Has the hon. Member finished?

Mr. de Freitas: No, Sir Charles, but I will not be long. The points which I want to make are short, but this is an important problem. It does not involve ranging over a wide field and is entirely concentrated in Lincoln.
The problem of the High Street is that the level crossing is not only antiquated in design but antiquated in that it ceases to function, as it did last Tuesday so that there was chaos. Throughout the whole of the principal street in Lincoln there was a traffic block for the best part of half an hour. I hope to have an assurance later that some of this money will be used for a really sensible scheme of improvement, such as redesigning all these antiquated railway crossings. In Lincoln, they are so designed as to cause the maximum inconvenience to the ordinary road-using public, in spite of the fact that those responsible for the railway avoid having rail traffic crossing and recrossing unnecessarily.
I understand that if diesel trains are used in the local run from Grantham to Lincoln and elsewhere, it will mean that engines by themselves will not have to cross the High Street again to return to the engine sheds. [Interruption.] The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) should realise that I am asking how the money which is provided by the Bill will be spent, and I am suggesting that it should be spent in these directions.
Diesel engines are coming, but how soon?
I make no apology for returning to this matter from time to time. In the past, the Minister of Transport has not shown any considerable interest in it and I have had to adopt a policy of goading and harrying. I make no apology for that at all.

Mr. James Harrison: Would my hon. Friend make clear his reference to light engines crossing the level crossing? I could not quite understand what he meant.

Mr. de Freitas: My hon. Friend has an advantage over me, in that he has had a wide experience of engines and of driving them. What happens is that a train comes into the platform but the engine sheds are separated from the platform by the High Street and it is necessary for the engine to re-cross the High Street to get to the engine shed. I understand that with a diesel train that problem would not arise, because then engine sheds will not be separated from the station by the High Street.
I hope that the Minister, apart from anything he may do about the Pelham Bridge, will do all he can to ensure that the Transport Commission uses some of this money to improve the level crossings in the centre of Lincoln.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Renton: The main justification put before the House of Commons—I am not now speaking of this Committee—for this Bill was that a modernisation plan was being launched. It seemed to many of us that we were told only part of the story and that another and a necessary part was to know what would be contained in the charges scheme. It would assist the Committee to know when we may expect the charges scheme.
I wish to refer to the most interesting speech of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on the subject of a Treasury guarantee. I consider that his speech would have been better directed to the Socialist Government of some years ago when they introduced the Treasury guarantee in the first place.

Mr. Grimond: Owing to a lamentable error on the part of the electorate I was not in the House at that time.

Mr. Ernest Davies: May I also remind the hon. and learned Member that precisely what he has suggested was done by the London Passenger Transport Board when other stock was introduced which had a variable rate of dividend? I do not say that I approve of it, but that was what was done.

Mr. Renton: I can see that there are reputable precedents for Treasury guarantees, but so far as this guarantee is concerned I think the argument could more appropriately have been addressed to the then Minister of Transport and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Let us come to the position as it is today. The nationalised railways have not yet had the opportunity of finding their true economic level in the matter of charges. They are obliged to carry an enormous number of uneconomic traffics such as no other business coming to the capital market would reasonably be asked to undertake. We hope that as a result of the combined effect of the modernisation plan and the charges scheme the railways may discover which


services they can operate economically and which they are unable to, and, therefore, willingly surrender to the roads. Pending the completion of this process they clearly cannot go to the capital market, as free business people would, and ask for an ordinary commercial loan without a Treasury guarantee, because they are in that handicapped state, and will be for a very long time. If they are to raise capital at all on the money market there must be a Treasury guarantee. I trust that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will accept that.

Mr. Grimond: All I am putting forward is that the Chancellor should take up an equity issue by the railways to help the railways in their present unhappy state. I suggest that it is not fair to put a heavy burden of loan charges on the railways, and that the Chancellor should take up the issue if the capital market will not.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is now putting forward a proposal which the Socialist Party would not accept—

Mr. Grimond: No.

Mr. Renton: —and which has not been accepted on this side of the Committee, namely, that the railways should obtain public capital but should be excused the obligation of paying a reasonable and limited interest on it, especially when that capital carries a Treasury guarantee.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: In one part of his speech the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) indicated that the railways are in the difficult position of having to carry uneconomic traffic, and he expressed the hope that in future the railways will be able to select their traffic. That is most interesting. Is the Hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that the common carrier obligation of the railways should be abandoned; that they be allowed to select their traffic and not be obliged to carry all the traffic offered to them?

Mr. Renton: There is no question of the railways selecting their traffic. But we hope that it will be clear from the charges scheme that the railways will carry that traffic which they can carry at competitive economic charges, and that their charges for other traffic which

they cannot carry now except at a loss will be such as to bring that traffic to an end. I think it is common knowledge among those who discuss transport matters that when the charges scheme is produced the railways will be pricing themselves out of certain sections of the traffic market, and that is why it is important for us to know what is contained in the charges scheme.

Mr. Popplewell: That carries the argument a step further. At first, I was under the impression that the hon. and learned Member thought that the railways should not be common carriers.
I wish to ask the Minister to be more precise about the reason for the increase in the borrowing powers of the railways from £275 million to £600 million. On Second Reading, he did not give any explanation beyond saying that it related mainly to capital expenditure which it was not expected would be undertaken during the years 1955 to 1959. The Committee is entitled to a further explanation.
Later during that debate the question of these borrowing powers became intermingled with the much wider question of modernisation and the £12 million plan which is envisaged. Is it proposed to use any of the money to assist the Transport Commission to meet the contemplated deficit which will be accentuated during the current financial year? We tried to get an account from the Minister of the undertaking he had given to the Commission respecting the additional charges being put upon it, but the right hon. Gentleman gave no answer. May I ask him again, therefore, if he had these in mind when he gave the all-clear to the Commission to go ahead?
Is this increase in the borrowing powers part of the price to be paid for the expenses and salaries of the area authorities? So far, we have had no definite statement from the Minister but only vague generalisations as to the powers of the area authorities. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the salaries, and what kind of expenses allowances will be made, and whether these form part of the necessity for the B.T.C. to ask for an increae in its borrowing powers? Undoubtedly, the Commission is in great difficulty. At present, it has to meet £52 million or £53 million a year in interest and central charges, and the


increase of £325 million in the borrowing powers will put a further burden upon the Commission by way of the interest payable on any money borrowed.
I am aware that the Government have given a guarantee to the Commission. Here, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon, may I say that a guarantee to the railways was not something new which came about with nationalisation. In pre-war days, when the railway companies could not raise the £25 million which they wanted for the London region, the Government had to give a guarantee. So, if the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to make a comparison, he must go much farther back than the administration in the years between 1945 and 1950.
How does the Minister expect that the Commission will be able to meet its future obligations? With the denationalisation of road transport we enter into another era. The Commission has been following a policy of closing branch lines and trying to get an integrated transport system. The further development of this policy will throw away more traffic.
It is argued by the B.T.C. in justification of the closing of branch lines that, as this traffic does not pay, it does not matter if it goes to the roads. Yet a further development of this policy will cause the Commission to lose more revenue which it is no longer able to recoup from the road services. Furthermore, last year the Commission made a profit on road haulage of £9 million and so, with the hiving off of road haulage, it will be faced with another big deficit. Will the new borrowing powers assist the Commission to meet that deficit or for what will the money be used? The Committee is entitled to know.
4.45 p.m.
Will the Minister tell us, also, whether the additional money will be used to provide amenities for the railway staffs? The railways are not covered by the Factories Acts and the conditions of shunters' bothies or guards' lobbies and other staff accommodation, even washing arrangements, are deplorable. Some of these places have been there from time immemorial, and although representations have been made in the past to the railway companies and latterly to the Commission for reasonable conditions, not luxurious premises, neither has had the

money to spend on these things. Since a reasonable standard in these matters is important to the railway staff, this should have priority if additional borrowing powers are given to the Commission.
The money will have to be borrowed on the open market at current interest rates. Who can tell what fluctuations are likely to take place, especially after the recent rise in the Bank Rate? And there is every possibility of a further increase taking place in the inflationary period into which the Tories are driving us. This will have still another effect upon the Commission when it borrows money on the open market.
All these additional financial obligations will fall upon the Commission at a time when the Government are doing their utmost to prevent it from operating as a paying proposition. I share the view of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that the Committee should not be entirely satisfied with a Government guarantee to underwrite this loan. If all these charges are to be borne entirely by the Commission, the Government are asking the impossible. I am not one of those who agree with subsidising the railways—

Mr. Grimond: The hon. Gentleman looked at me, but I do not want that either. Yet we are entitled to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he is doing. The right hon. Gentleman is subsidising the railways though he says he is not.

Mr. Popplewell: We are entitled to ask the Government to do something more for the Commission than to make vague statements.
Even at this late stage additional expenditure is being foisted on the Commission by way of the appointment of the area authorities. Surely the transport users' consultative committees which have already been established can give the Commission far better advice about the nature of traffic in the areas than can the one or two individuals who are being brought in to act as an additional link in the chain between the Commission and the divisional general managers. The Minister should give careful thought to that because it is a serious matter to ask the House to approve additional borrowing powers of this magnitude, placing an additional burden upon the Commission, when


so many actions have been taken to prevent the Commission from being efficient.
I hope the Minister will treat very seriously the suggestions which I have put to him and the questions that I have asked him about expenditure. I hope he will treat particularly seriously my questions about providing additional amenities for the staff. Booking offices and many of the other offices on the old railways are a disgrace. In the marshalling yards and at other centres, in view of the dirty nature of the work which the men are called upon to perform, there ought to be reasonable welfare arrangements. These places have been so grossly neglected that they are back to the standard of the Dark Ages. It is right that in giving the Commission these powers the House of Commons should insist that some of the additional cash should be spent upon the provision of amenities.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: Perhaps the few remarks which I wish to address to the Committee on this matter will be considered somewhat original. Although I am very mindful of the need for amenities for the staff of the railways, I am also very conscious of the great need for amenities for the passengers. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept that the railways are operated for the people who ride upon them and for the goods which they seek to carry.

Mr. Popplewell: Surely, consideration should be given to the staff who are actually operating the railways.

Squadron Leader Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read in the Official Report tomorrow morning what I have just said, he will find that I am very mindful of the need for amenities for the staff, but I repeat that we operate the transport system of this country for the benefit of the passengers and for industry and we do not operate it for the benefit of the staff. If we can get first things first clearly in our minds we may have more constructive debates in this House.
First, I want to make some observations about the very heavy standing charge to which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) has just referred. It is common form for the Labour Party to create the impression in the country that an enor-

mous sum of money is being paid out annually and which is a crushing burden on the finances of the Commission. Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite will recognise that if the nationalisers had built our transport system from scratch they would have had to provide the money and probably at a considerably greater cost than the present cost to the Commission. The charge can be regarded simply as an interest payment on the capital assets which the Commission took over. It is the kind of burden which every industry in the country has to carry. It is a burden which other nationalised industries have to carry, and they recognise it as part of the financial make-up of industry. One cannot get away from that sort of thing.
I was interested to hear the concern expressed by the hon. Member about the possible increase in charges which may result from the increase in the Bank Rate. We did not hear the same concern expressed by hon. Members opposite when the Labour Government nationalised the gas industry and there was the famous issue of Daltons which was made at about 100 and ended up at about 72, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of pounds to small investors.
For several years now, when Bills of this sort have come forward, hon. Members on both sides have spoken about the amenities on our trains and at our stations. Year has succeeded year, but nothing has been done. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West described the amenities for the staff as disgraceful. I agree with him that they are disgraceful and that we should be ashamed that this sort of thing should continue in our railway service. However, the amenities for the ordinary passengers are more than disgraceful. As one who has travelled almost all over the world, I say without hesitation that our railway dining car service is the worst that I have met in any civilised country.

Mr. J. Harrison: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us some of the places with which he is comparing the British Railways' restaurant car service?

Squadron Leader Cooper: Let the hon. Gentleman simply get out a map and take all the countries in Europe, starting at Finland and going down through the Scandinavian countries, Western Europe and Western Germany, even to Spain and


to Italy, and even along the Northern Coast of Africa, where the labour is poor. We all know that our trains just do not compare with anything in Canada and America. In any of the countries which I have just mentioned, and even in India and Burma, the facilities provided for passengers far exceed anything that we have in this country.

Mr. Ernest Davies: When the hon. Gentleman talks about better conditions in dining cars, is he comparing price with price and like with like? It is a well-known fact that on the French railways the prices are very much higher than they are in England; the food may be a little better than here, but the prices are far higher than in this country. One must compare like with like.

Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Gentleman, who almost always leads for the Opposition in these debates, seems to be satisfied with standards of mediocrity which my hon. Friends and I are not prepared to accept. One can go to any of the countries which I have mentioned and can have two or three different types of meals on the railways. One can have a cheap meal if one so desires or one can have an expensive meal.
Hon. Members know what sort of a meal one can get and what sort of service is provided if one travels on British Railways. If one travels on the morning train to Manchester or Liverpool at breakfast time, what does one find? One is not provided with a menu to look at to make one's choice. No, what happens is that somebody comes along with one of those notorious coffee pots, which, I am convinced, have two spouts, one which puts the tea or coffee in the cup and one which puts it in the saucer. Then a waiter comes along with two or three dishes along his arm, perhaps with two sorts of semi-warm fish, a miserable looking sausage or some kind of mixed grill. Then these things are put down in front of one—

The Chairman: I would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are dealing with borrowing and capital, but not with revenue and expenditure.

Squadron Leader Cooper: I am trying to put forward the argument that a lot of money needs to be spent upon these services at the present time. If this money is not in the "kitty" at the moment, then

the borrowing powers of the Commission should be used to divert some of it for these services. That is all I am seeking to show in my argument and I submit that it is germane to the discussion.
5.0 p.m.
So much, then, for our dining cars on trains; a similar state of affairs exists in restaurants on our stations. Surely nobody would deny that. Not only are conditions in these restaurants bad, but the facilities are not normally provided for seven days a week. If one has the misfortune to travel on a Sunday, one will probably find that one cannot get anything at all and other facilities also are not open to one. A great deal of money should be spent on the hotel services run by the Transport Commission and I should say that the hotels which they run are probably the worst that there are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Why should hon. Members be afraid of criticism which everybody knows to be true?

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Member is making statements and allegations which he is not at all attempting to substantiate. He is simply making statements of fact without proving them. Some of the British Railways hotels, such as Glen-eagles and the Royal Station, at York and others, are extremely well-known hotels and extremely well run. They have received considerable praise from tourists.

Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Member seeks to sustain his argument by mentioning two, or three hotels out of a large number. One need only go to the big cities. Let us not refer to holiday places where special catering facilities are provided, but to those places where the ordinary traveller has to go, like Manchester. If any of the names which have been thrown at me from the other side of the Committee are indicative of the standards hon. Members seem to want of a hotel, then I am very sorry for them. I repeat my argument which I obviously cannot prove by bringing a hotel to the Floor of the House and asking hon. Members to look at it. I can argue only on the basis of public opinion and what we know to be established facts.
My final point is one which I have raised on several occasions in the past. The chairman of the Transport Commission has written me several letters about


it, but still nothing is done. The toilets on our trains and in our stations are appalling. The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. J. Harrison) nods in agreement. Much money needs to be spent in that direction.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It does not seem to me that this matter arises on the Clause at all.

Squadron Leader Cooper: I was under the impression that this was a Bill to provide the Transport Commission with extra moneys to improve its facilities. I have mentioned ways in which those facilities could be improved and twice I have been called out of order. I submit that to improve the things I have mentioned it is necessary to spend money and that falls within the matter which we are discussing.
The general public is far too complacent and apathetic about the state of affairs which we find on our railways today. If the general public were to criticise the Transport Commission more often to improve facilities, such as I have suggested, I am sure it could be done.

Mr. J. Harrison: I should have fully agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) if the purpose of his contribution had been to see that the money to be expended under this Bill would be used to improve these very essential ancillary services, such as restaurants and hotels. I do not want to be cynical or too critical about the matter, but it would have helped his case had he mentioned some particular hotel.
If he had mentioned some hotel, or hotels, we could have joined with him in looking at the case, because some of us are familiar with some of the hotels run by the British Transport Commission.

Squadron Leader Cooper: The Queen's, Birmingham.

Mr. Harrison: Such a contribution as that would give more weight to any criticism he made.
In the transport world we are suffering from a tendency towards carping criticism, which is not helpful and very often unsubstantiated, of the operations of the Commission's different services. I also regret

the comparison which the hop. Member made between the British Railways' services and those in Spain, Burma, and. many other countries.
I suggest that our services compare very favourably, not only with the Spanish, or French, but even with the American and Canadian services. In fact, our services are a little better than the French services. That has been my experience. It is not so many years ago that we sent men to Canada to assist in the reorganising of what were then bad services there. Those men shared the considerable fund of experience and knowledge of reorganisation which we possessed in this country, and it is regrettable that such a damning indictment of British Railways should have been made by the hon. and gallant Member.
His first point was a more reasonable line to take. He suggested that had the British Transport Commission to purchase its present assets anew, putting down the actual cash in modern terms of purchasing power, it would have cost the Commission considerably more than was paid at the take-over. I agree with him on that, and it brings us to a point of substance in the organisation of the Commission's concerns.
There is another factor that enters into such a picture. Suppose we expended all that extra money for the purchase of those assets at current prices. In an ordinary business that purchase would immediately be reflected in the charges for the commodities we were to sell, and therefore transport charges would be very substantially affected by any such expenditure. One can imagine the height that transport charges would reach to meet such expenditure.
Therefore, the general public and industry are much better off by being able to accept the position that we do not have to pay for the main assets of the Commission anew. The Commission is not charging—compared with other prices and charges—as much as industry generally is charging for its commodities. Transport and freight charges have not gone up to the extent that commodity prices have increased. To that extent we can see an element of subsidy from the Commission to industry and the country generally. I feel that is something which we ought to appreciate in our assessment of the general position.
On the matter of the borrowing of this vast sum of money, I should like to return to the theme of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). He said we were embarking on an endeavour that was to cost the British Transport Commission considerable sums of money in interest each year. I recognise that in the venture envisaged in the Bill we are running some risks about the repayment every year of the heavy interest charges.
I do not think there was any substantial contradiction between the theme of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and that of the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton). The point made was that the substantially heavy burden was a risk, and that the Commission would have to work very hard every year in order to find the money. It was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon that the present position of the British Transport Commission is that it is a. completely uneconomic organisation, and that if we tried through ordinary channels to secure the necessary money we should have to wait a long time.
Indeed, it might be that the money would not be forthcoming because it would involve a measure of risk, and the general public would not be willing to take that risk which they would be taking if they subscribed these vast sums. The state of the present assets of the Transport Commission, is something which must be seriously faced. This Bill will contribute to the removal of the uneconomic position regarding the assets and the organisation, and at the same time the other aspects of the risk will give the Commission an opportunity of putting the business on a broader commercial basis. To argue from a commercial basis at this juncture is to assume that there is something from which to argue, but I am suggesting that the present position is not sufficiently commercially sound to accept it as such a basis from which to argue.

Mr. Arthur Holt: Does the hon. Member not agree that when an ordinary commercial enterprise gets into difficulty it reorganises its capital on the basis of present profitability no matter what the replacement costs are? Does he not think that that would be a good idea for the railways to adopt?

Mr. Harrison: If the railways were something less vital, if they were just an ordinary industry or an ordinary commercial institution, I should agree with the hon. Member.
Unfortunately there is another element in this matter, and that is that we could not afford to reorganise our railways in the way suggested by the hon. Member, because if an ordinary business ceases to make a profit to the extent which the railway organisation has done it closes its doors. We cannot visualise a position in which the railways would close down or even restrict their enterprise, because they might have to do that to such an extent that it would be a killing blow to all sections of industry. Therefore, we are not in a position to choose that particular method of reorganisation.
The railways must continue in almost the way they are doing today, and their economic position makes it inevitable for us to find the money for reorganisation so that they can be turned into a successful commercial proposition. But it is always well to remember that in the reorganisation of the railways we are more or less tied by the nature of the undertaking.
5.15 p.m.
When we considered the question of finance in our recent debate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) sent me a copy of a pamphlet entitled "Change—our ally," and he called attention to a recommendation about the canals. It might be to the advantage of the Committee generally to examine the view here expressed. This is what is said about the problem of the canals and the finances of the Transport Commission:
Probably a part of the canal system, given real freedom in charges and a chance to obtain new capital, would prove its superiority for suitable traffic to other forms of transport.
That seems to me to be an ironic comment on the plight of the canals and of the Transport Commission.
We seem to be in the position that through normal channels we cannot attract new capital for reorganisation. That is one of the major difficulties, and this Bill, irrespective of the risks involved—and there are some—is the only means to meet the position which we find today in the British Transport Commission's undertakings.

Mr. David Jones: Before we conclude the Committee stage of this Bill, we should like to get some more information from the right hon. Gentleman on some of the questions which were directed to him and to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary during the Second Reading debate on the Bill. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) has left the Chamber, for I always think that to exaggerate criticism is to destroy one's case completely.
Of course there is room for improvement in the British Transport Commission's dining-car service. It may very well be that some of the hotels run by the Commission could be improved. But some of us know hotels in some parts of the country which are very well run. I have one in my own constituency, and I invite any hon. Member in this Committee to come along to it. He will there experience first-class service at reasonable prices. I am not advertising the Grand Hotel at Hartlepool at all.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that this has nothing to do with the capital charges mentioned in this Clause.

Mr. Jones: With all due respect, we are debating a Bill to give the British Transport Commission increased borrowing powers, and if the Minister were foolish enough to listen to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford, South, who recommended that the Commission should spend a large part of its money on improving its hotel service, then obviously there would not be sufficient capital left to develop the essential services. How the British Transport Commission spends this money when it is sanctioned by Parliament seems to me to be relevant. But I bow to your Ruling, Sir Rhys, and leave the matter there.

Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. This raises a very important matter of interpretation of the Standing Orders. Your predecessor in the Chair today, Sir Rhys, ruled that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) was in order when dealing with a number of local problems arising out of railway administration in Lincoln, and other hon. Members have followed a similar course. I want to put

the point to you that before the Committee votes the necessary finances increasing the borrowing powers from £275 million to £600 million we have a right to ask how the money is to be spent, and, particularly, how much is to be spent on modernisation.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) was discussing the administration of hotels, which seemed to me to concern the day-to-day working of the Transport Commission. The purpose of the Bill is to increase the borrowing powers of the Transport Commission and it sets out certain ways in which that can be done. That is what the Bill seems to me to deal with.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I hope that nothing you have said, Sir Rhys, indicates that you will not feel it possible, when the time comes, to permit me to make certain observations in reply to the charges made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford, South against the hotel and catering administration of the Commission. He was allowed to make certain allegations about that, and I should like to say something in reply.

The Deputy-Chairman: I did not hear the whole of the hon. and gallant Member's speech, but if he was not ruled out of order the right hon. Gentleman must be allowed to reply. The part of his speech which I did hear seemed not to be in order, but if a previous Ruling was given I must abide by it.

Mr. Jones: As I understand it, Sir Rhys, your illustrious predecessors in the Chair, in the days when the late railway companies were seeking additional borrowing powers, ruled that it was competent to discuss fairly fully how they were exercising their powers and spending the money which they already had. At the time of the first British Transport Commission Bill I remember that the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister had some very caustic things to say about railway administration. I assume that my hon. Friends and I are now entitled to discuss how the Commission is exercising the powers and using the money that Parliament has already permitted it to use. That is all that I was trying to do.
I disagree with the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South that no effort should be made to improve the amenities which are available to the staff of British Railways. I agree that the primary purpose of the railways is to provide for travelling passengers and to convey freight from one place to another, but unless an employer with modern ideas seeks to treat his employees in a reasonable fashion he is not likely to get that efficiency which the Court of Inquiry some weeks ago thought possible in British Railways.
During the Second Reading debate, the Minister of Transport pointed out that some part of the £600 million which the Bill grants to the Commission would be employed in putting into operation some parts of the modernisation plan. He said:
The expenditure during this forward period, what I may call the normal capital development of the Commission, is expected to be about £450 million, of which about £200 million will be found from the Commission's own resources. I used the expression 'normal capital development' to refer to development which is mainly apart from that contemplated in the modernisation and re-equipment plan which has recently been published."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 1747.]
He also said that there was a sum of about £75 million which could be devoted to the modernisation plan in general.
Later, his hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, replying to the debate, enumerated a number of schemes which, he said, had already been started and which, he inferred, were part of the modernisation plan. I attempted to intervene to point out that most of the schemes which had already been started were not part of the modernisation plan but part of the ordinary development of the Commission from year to year.
The point upon which I was seeking some information then is one which I want to put to the Minister again, because in neither of the debates has it been answered to my satisfaction. It has been said by the Court of Inquiry and in the Report of the Commission for 1953 that at the end of 1953 there was a deficit of £273 million; that the deficit in 1954 would be a further £15 million and—in evidence given before the Court of Inquiry—that the deficit in 1955 would be £25 million. That did not take into account the additional cost of the wage concessions in December of last year and January of this, which amount to a further

£10 million. According to those figures, the Commission is likely to be £77 million "in the red" by the end of 1955.
So far as one can see, it is likely that the Commission's figures upon the expenditure side will exceed, by some £35 million, its receipts for the years from 1st January, 1956 onwards, unless there are improvements. I have reason to believe that it may be possible to save about £5 million by reorganisation and the elimination of redundancy as a result of the joint consultative machinery coming into operation during succeeding years. It has also been estimated by those who know that if the Commission increases its freight charges by 10 per cent. it will receive an extra £15 million a year, taking into account traffic for which the Commission has to compete with other forms of transport.
Ten million pounds of the £15 million will arise from traffic which is more or less monopoly traffic, but the balance will arise from traffics in relation to which the Commission has to compete with other forms of transport. If both those factors are realised—that is, the saving on administration and the extra revenue coming in from increased freight charges—the Commission can expect to be £20 million better off in 1955.
5.30 p.m.
As against that there is likely to be a deficit of £35 million. We have, therefore, to add at least £15 million to the £77 million which, in any case will be the deficit at the end of 1955. I sought to put that point, and the Parliamentary Secretary indicated in his reply that the half-dozen improvement schemes which he mentioned had already been set afoot would yield such an advantage to the Commission that it would balance the deficit. He said:
We expect to begin to obtain increased returns almost as soon as the expenditure is incurred."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 1853.]
The Commission is not nearly so optimistic. Paragraph 136 of "Modernisation and Re-Equipment of British Railways" says:
It is not possible to say how quickly the expenditures made under the Plan will fructify, but since they are all interdependent the full benefit will not be reaped for many years ahead. A question arises as to what the policy is to be meanwhile. Experience shows that once traffic had been lost to a particular form


of transport it is very difficult to attract it back again. The position must be faced that certain traffics may have to be carried for some years to come although they are considered to be unremunerative, because ultimately under the Plan the new operating methods to be introduced will make them remunerative and it would be unwise, to say the least, to discard them in the meantime.
The Commission there suggests that any advantages arising from the reorganisation plan will not be reaped for some years, but most of the schemes which the Parliamentary Secretary listed during his speech on 8th February have nothing to do with the modernisation plan at all. They are improvements which were projected before the modernisation plan was conceived.
I therefore put it to the Minister of Transport the point that it will be completely unfair to the staff employed on the railways, to the Commission, and to the public for us now to be talking about increasing the Commission's borrowing powers to £600 million. If the right hon. Gentleman is still in office—and I shall do my best to see that he is not—I have no doubt that some time, either later this year or during next year, he will be seeking, in this House, further borrowing powers so that the British Transport Commission can embark upon this scheme.
Let us not forget, however, that if we take the £1,200 million which is the cost, and the £450 million normal expenditure that was mentioned, we are not talking about an expenditure of £1,200 million but of £1,650 million on British Railways. In addition to that, the Commission will be "in the red" at the end of this year to the tune of some £77 million, with an anticipated loss of a further £15 million each year for five years at least.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, either wittingly or unwittingly, did not give the House the full facts on 3rd Febbruary. He then said:
So far as I can judge, and taking into account the figure of £25 million which has been given as the £15 million deficit plus the £10 million for the recent settlement, it is reasonable to say that there are good prospects of this plan paying its way. The Government therefore consider that funds for this plan must be found."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 1853.]
The Chancellor did not say what the Commission had to do about the deficit already incurred for 1954—and I am

speaking without the assistance of the 1954 Report of B.T.C.—and the projected deficit for 1955, which will be incurred even if the Commission's best estimate is realised of a £5 million saving on administration and additional revenue from the new charges scheme of £15 million. It is obvious, of course, that they will not realise £15 million in 1955. So far as I know, the scheme is not yet known and it cannot be operative for more than nine months in this year at the most.
I would, therefore, invite the right hon. Gentleman, when he winds up the debate, to tell us just a little more about how the Transport Commission is to handle that deficit which remains on its books and which, as far as I can see, is likely to increase year by year for the next five years. It is bound to be a source of worry to the people charged with the responsibility of running the Commission, and must be of concern to those employed by the Commission who, with this deficit hanging over their heads, may find themselves waking up any fine morning with a new scheme of retrenchment in the air because the difficulty caused by this deficit ought to be cleared up.
I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South who said that if the Transport Commission was starting from scratch it would have to borrow the money and would have to pay interest on the money needed for constructing the railway, but everyone appreciates that were we free tomorrow to construct a new railway system we should avoid a very great number of mistakes, and save a large sum of money which was needlessly wasted in competition in the earlier years. Therefore, we cannot examine this matter from the angle of making a fresh start. We have to accept the railway system as it is now.
We have to do something more. We have to recognise that rail transport has now become a public service to all sections of the community. There is not a single commercial enterprise, there is not a single industry—be it private or public enterprise—which could carry on if the railways were not there to carry the goods. It was, I think, an illustrious fellow-countryman of yours and mine, Sir Rhys, who once described our coal industry as the industry which gave lifeblood to this nation. If that be the case, then the railways are the arteries through which that


lifeblood passes to every part of the economic body.
Therefore, we have, very largely, to treat this industry as a public service, and I hope, in the interests of the industry and of the 600,000 men employed in it, that we shall have some more information tonight on what is to happen about the deficit on the railways, in order that the men employed on the railways can at least be satisfied that in another 18 months or two years they are not likely to be faced with another period of retrenchment.

Mr. Holt: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), because it is most important that the Government should tell us more about what they intend to do about the deficit on the railways, which, as is recognised by everybody, is likely to be very much worse next year. As far as I am aware, we have heard of no comprehensive plan for getting rid of it, with the exception of some rather hopeful suggestions that the 15-year modernisation plan might, at the end of that time, have eliminated the deficit.
I do not agree with some of the closing remarks of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools. There are many methods of transport in this country, and I am desperately keen that the railways should pay their way in providing those services for which they are most fitted.

Mr. D. Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman imagine any form of transport, other than the railways, being capable of transporting coal, iron ore, sand, ballast, and that kind of traffic, from one part of the country to another?

Mr. Holt: Last week, I spent a couple of days visiting some atomic plants, and it may be that in the course of years—it may even be generations—commodities like coal will not be moved about the country in the way that they are now. There is nothing static about transport. There was a great revolution in the last generation, and there are now many things that are more appropriately carried on the roads than on the railways. However, I still agree that there is a large amount of freight and a large number of passengers which can still be carried most economically and comfortably by rail, and, where that can be done, I want to

see the railways making a profit from doing it.
I wish to refer to the words printed in italics at the end of Clause 1, which authorise
the Treasury to give guarantees with respect to stock or loans and which provide for charging sums required for fulfilling any such guarantee on the Consolidated Fund and for paying into the Exchequer any sums received by way of repayment of sums so required or by way of interest thereon.
I should like to hear quite frankly from the Minister whether the Government envisage that they may have to carry out the guarantees laid down in the 1947 Act; that is to say, whether, in fact, they envisage that this year, next year or in another year, the railways will not be able to make the contribution to the Transport Commission which they could make, and that the Treasury will have to pay the interest on the transport stock. The Act says that the Treasury can do this, and that might be a reasonable way out of the difficulty. I suggest that this deficit cannot be left in the air, as it is. It is a quite intolerable burden for the Commission to go on bearing.
It may be that if the railways were built today, they would cost far more, or, if they were laid out more efficiently, far less than the value at which they now stand in the books of the Transport Commission. But that seems to me to be quite irrelevant. If we have a lot of physical assets which cease to make a profit, and, instead, constantly make a loss year after year, they depreciate in value. In fact, they can cease to have a value at all. A commercial company which ceases to make a profit goes out of business, and all its assets, which may have cost £1 million may be sold for £1,000. Hon. Members who have any knowledge of conditions in Lancashire before the war know that many mills in the 1920s were worth £1 million, but were, nevertheless, sold for a few hundred pounds during the 1930s.
5.45 p.m.
I suggest to the Government that they should look in more of a commercial manner upon the British Transport Commission in its present plight and that, since the Commission stated to the inquiry which took place before Christmas that it did not consider that any useful purpose could be served by increasing charges—irrespective of any alterations that might


come in under the new charges scheme—and that by increasing charges they would lose traffic, the net result of which would be a loss. I do not know whether that is true or not, but it is their statement. If that is so, how is the deficit to be dealt with?
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools has pointed out that the deficit will still continue, no matter what savings are likely to be made in the immediate future. Therefore, I suggest that it is not unreasonable, no matter what was originally paid for these capital assets, to consider reorganising the capital structure of the Commission. I do not think that this would contain an element of subsidy, or that it would be closing our eyes to the real issue, but I do think that the introduction of an element of reality into the capital structure of this nationalised industry might well be an example to be followed in others.
We are faced with an industry which for many years has fallen on evil times, and we want to give it a fresh start. I suggest that there is a great deal to be said for the kind of capital reorganisation which would take place in an ordinary commercial enterprise, and I suggest that it would help if we did something like that. An ordinary commercial enterprise which embarked on such a reorganisation would say, "We can see that in the years ahead we might make real progress and become really profitable. We therefore suggest writing down our £1 stock to 5s."—as was done more than once before the war in the cotton trade, when shares were written down to Is.—"We are reorganising our stock, and, as a consequence, we shall not have to pay so much interest on stock in future years. Then, we will issue some more stock, and be quite realistic about it."
The Commission could say that it could not go on the market, but that the Treasury would back the stock, and, though it might not receive any interest for a few years, it would get more than 3½ per cent., and even 7, 8 or 9 per cent. in ten years' time. If the Treasury backs this railway plan, I think that that is the kind of view which they might realistically take.
I should like to hear from the Minister whether he considers this to be completely foolish and a scheme not worth consider-

ing, and, if he does, what he proposes to do about this deficit, of which the hon. Member for The Hartlepools gave details. It seems to me that the Government have not faced up to the difficulties arising from the heavy deficit during this year and which are likely to arise in subsequent years, and which the Transport Commission will have to meet.

Mr. Ernest Davies: As the House resumes at 7 o'clock, and as I am sure the Committee would like the Minister to reply to the large number of points which have been put in debating this Clause, I should now like to put some further points to him.
He will have noticed that throughout the debate various hon. Members have asked the Government again and again what they intend to do about the financial position in which the Commission finds itself today. We are now debating the borrowing by the Commission of £325 million more, and, therefore, it is our responsibility to inquire whether, by borrowing this additional sum, the Commission is likely, in the years to come, to be in better financial shape, or whether, by so doing, its position will not be improved at all. In view of the fact that there is no prospect of the Commission's paying its way within the next decade—fifteen years was the period given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the outlook is not encouraging.
In 1954, the Commission already had an accumulated deficit of £27 million. It is now estimated that the deficit for that year will be £15 million which, with the increased wage award, will make the deficit in 1955 £35 million, not allowing for economies. In 1956, again allowing only £5 million for possible savings, there will still be a deficit in the nature of £30 million per annum. When these figures were given, the only answer of the Parliamentary Secretary was that we were on the pessimistic side and that he did not take such a gloomy view. Whether the deficit is £10 million, £20 million or £30 million, neither the Minister of Transport, the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Parliamentary Secretary, has held out any hope of the Commission's paying its way within the period which we are now discussing, the next five years.
If this £325 million is borrowed—we consider it is necessary that it should be


borrowed—there will be increased interest charges, and the expenditure of the capital will take time in bringing results. Its immediate expenditure will not bring additional revenue. Of the £325 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) has just pointed out, only £75 million is to be spent on the modernisation plan within the next five years, as the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary both stressed.
The schemes under the plan are by no means immediately remunerative. In summarising them the Minister stated that there would be
a great deal of the first work on extra bridge renewals and track strengthening in preparation both for higher train speeds and electrification. There will be preliminary expenditure on automatic train control… on signalling and the additional cost of new methods of propulsion—new types of locomotive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1955; `Vol. 536, c. 1748.]
From none of those will there be additional revenue. There will be something from electrification from Chelmsford to Ipswich.
It is necessary for us to be realistic. The expenditure of this money will not immediately improve the position of the Transport Commission. It is essential that the money be borrowed, as that will save the Commission from being in worse plight now, but it will not help the Commission in the immediate future. One has to look at it from the long term, that of the modernisation plan over a period of fifteen years.
Even there, one cannot be sanguine about the long-term financial results. The most optimistic forecasts in the plan and in the House of Commons are that £30 million net additional revenue will accrue when the plan is fully operative. Not allowing for increased costs, which may be offset by economies or increased charges under the new charges scheme, the net revenue of £30 million will only meet the expected deficit of £30 million. So, even after fifteen years when the plan comes into operation, the additional earnings will only wipe out the deficits which are now being incurred.
The Chancellor and other Government spokemen took that point of view. They said there was a reasonable prospect of the Commission's paying its way in fifteen years' time. That is not very encouraging. In asking the Committee to pass the Clause for additional borrowing powers

the Government ought to give more explanation than they were able to during the Second Reading. In the City, this proposition would appear very poor business. If investors were asked to loan £325 million, and all they could be told by those who were making the issue was, "In the next fifteen years we shall make losses but at the end of the fifteen years there is a reasonable prospect that we shall pay our way. We are going to let the losses and the deficits continue, and to be added to the other £27 million lost" it would be a pretty poor business outlook. This is supposed to be a Government of business men who believe in business ways.
We are, therefore, justified in asking the Government to be a little more explicit about what they intend to do about the solvency of the Transport Commission. In the debate on 3rd February, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would direct himself as concisely as possible to the Government's attitude towards the future solvency of the railways, but we found no answer. He said that he looked upon the Transport Commission as responsible, and had every confidence in it to do everything it could to economise, increase efficiency and modernise, and so forth. Within the fifteen years it would be paying its way.
We have not yet been given a direct, definite and convincing answer what the Government think can be done to make the expenditure and revenue accounts of the Commission balance within a reasonable time, and to accumulate a surplus in order to wipe out the deficits which have already accumulated. We have been told that there would be a Treasury guarantee. That is the minimum which could be done. The plan points out that the capital cost will carry about £40 million in interest charges per annum. That appears to be rather high, working it out at 5 per cent. gross on the £800 million which it is proposed should be borrowed for the plan. I appreciate that it includes both interest charges and capital redemption charge, but it seems to make the cost of borrowing rather high.
6.0 p.m.
I am wondering whether the Government, and particularly the Treasury, have thought of cheaper ways of borrowing.


So far, borrowing for all the transport stock has been on a long-term basis, and it might be cheaper if a certain amount of this stock were borrowed on a short-term basis, in view of the fact that it is being invested to bring in remunerative capital within the comparatively short period of fifteen years.
I am certainly not attracted by the suggestion, which came from the Liberal benches this afternoon, that an element of equity stock should be introduced into the nationalised concerns. I do not want us to return, as it were, to the profit motive, even though the Government are the interested party in operating the industry.
The Government subsidised private enterprise before the war by giving a Treasury guarantee to the railways for special capital work so as to enable them to operate at a far cheaper rate than they would otherwise have been able to do, and I think that they should give serious consideration to making an interest-free loan to the Transport Commission in order to relieve it of additional interest during the transitional period from the present difficult position to the improved position which, we hope, will be brought about by the modernisation and re-equipment plan. That is the minimum which the Government should do at this stage. Not only is it right that the Commission's loan stock should be guaranteed by the Treasury, but, if the Commission is to be helped at all, an interest-free loan for the capital investment might be one way of doing it.
During our previous debates, we on this side asked what were the Commission's views on the financial position. We were not wholly satisfied with the answers which we received from the Treasury Bench. The Parliamentary Secretary stated categorically that the Commission had never asked for a subsidy. We, of course, accept that absolutely. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it absolutely clear that he had no intention of giving a subsidy to the Commission. But it is one thing not to ask for a subsidy, and another to make one's financial position clear without saying specifically that one is asking for aid.
I should like to know whether the Commission has been consulted by the Minister or by the Treasury about its

financial position. Have conversations taken place, and has any conclusion been reached as to how the present position is to be met? Or are the Government leaving it to slide, and the deficit to accumulate? Again, in this connection, no satisfactory answer has yet been given as to why the Chairman of the Commission, in particular, appeared to believe that financial aid was to be given to the Commission.
The Chairman has been frequently quoted as saying, when the wage award was made, and when he was asked where the money was to come from, that it was no concern of his. But we on this side cannot help thinking that no such statement would have been made by a gentleman in such a responsible position as the Chairman of the Commission unless he had been given an indication, however indirect, that he could expect some financial assistance to be given to the Commission. So far, here is no indication of such aid being given, and in our view the Commission is being treated a little shabbily at the present time.
The Commission is doing a fine job. We were glad to note that on the last occasion the Minister himself paid a great tribute to what had been done by the Commission in recent years. If the morale and confidence of those working inside the organisation are to be maintained, there must be some hope of bringing about a satisfactory solution to their present difficulties, and that, I suggest, would be stimulated and aided if they knew exactly where they stood from the financial point of view.
The more we discuss the plan itself, for which part of this money is being raised—although only £75 million—the more remote, in one way, it appears to become. We are still rather concerned about priorities, and the small scale on which the plan is to be embarked upon in the next five years. If the plan, as estimated, is to cost £1,200 million in fifteen years, and if in five years only £75 million is to be spent, then it seems that somebody is being very optimistic in thinking that it will be possible to spend the balance in the remaining ten years.
Altogether, £600 million is to be raised other than by borrowing. Perhaps the Minister can give us some information this afternoon about the sections of this plan which are to be financed out of the


£75 million during the five-year period, in addition to those on the list which he gave us. I hope that I have made the point clear. He has indicated the schemes on which the £75 million which is being borrowed is to be spent. We should like to know whether, in addition, other works in connection with the plan are to be carried out during the five years and whether they will be financed from internal resources.
If there is an additional list, that would give a little encouragement regarding the speed with which the plan is being carried out. This is an imaginative scheme, and we want to see it carried out as soon as possible. We have been a little discouraged by previous remarks made by the Minister which indicated that it would be a very long time before we really began to see results.
There is a further question which I wish to put to the Minister. We have been discussing the modernisation and re-equipment plan, but this money is being borrowed by the Commission for all its purposes, that is to say, it is not confined to the railways alone. We have recently had the Commission's statement about Route C—the new tube route from Tottenham to Walthamstow. Full details of the plan were released by the Commission for completing this route.
I think it would be helpful to us if we could be told why at this stage, when details of Route C had been released—obviously indicating that there are plans for proceeding with this route—no mention was made during the debate of this new tube. So far as I recall, we have not been told whether some of this borrowing is intended for the purpose of starting preliminary work on that long-needed project. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that before very long work will start on this tube.
It would be helpful, if it were possible, for the Minister to give us some idea of the priorities. As I have stated before, from my constituents point of view I very much regret that the electrification of the north London suburban line was not mentioned in the immediate project. I hope that when the priorities are considered, and when it is possible to publish the order in which the work is to be done, it will be found that the Enfield lines are to rank among the highest priorities. Facilities for north London rank at the

top in the Report on travel facilities in London. The urgency and the need have been stressed, and it is regrettable that certain other lines which have appeared at the head of the list, such as the Tilbury-Southend line, are to take priority. That is the indication and if the Minister can deny it, I hope he will.

Mr. Ellis Smith: All about London.

Mr. Davies: If my hon. Friend does not know where Enfield is, I am sorry for him, because he does not know what is good.
In conclusion, we support the Clause, but we are anxious to have from the Minister a little more information. We hope that he will be a little more forthcoming than during the last debate, and will reassure us about the Government's attitude to the Commission's bad financial position.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will endeavour, if I may, to deal with the considerable number of points which have been raised in the debate on this Clause.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What about those which have not been raised?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member has got me there I can deal only with those points which have been raised—and only with those if I am able to decipher my handwriting.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) raised the question of the Treasury guarantee. I think he under-rated the value of that Treasury guarantee for the Commission's borrowing. Many private enterprise concerns which have not the advantage of that guarantee would, I think, be only too thankful to have it. It means that borrowing can be effected at broadly the same price as that at which Government credit stands, and it is, therefore, a considerable advantage to any concern to have the Treasury guarantee.
The hon. Member raised the interesting and rather wide question of whether a replacement of the Treasury guarantee, at any rate of part of this borrowing, should not be some kind of equity borrowing by the nationalised industries. One of my hon. Friends pointed out that the present principle was applied in all the nationalisation Acts, except, I think, the Coal Act, where, speaking off the cuff, I believe the borrowing was from the Consolidated Fund, although the effect was similar.
There would be great difficulty in applying the principle of equity borrowing to nationalised industries. Apart from anything else, in the ordinary commercial way the holders of the majority of the equity shares of most concerns are entitled to control, and if these proposed equity shares in the B.T.C. were held publicly it would raise many difficult questions of control, whereas if they were held by the Government it might involve a greater degree of control over the business management of the B.T.C. than right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who set up the Commission, or my right hon. Friends and I would like to see.
I think there is a fairly large body of feeling in the country that the nationalised corporations should have a considerable degree of independence in running their own business affairs, and I think there would be some difficulty in reconciling that principle with the idea of equity shares, but it is a very interesting idea.

Mr. Grimond: It could be an important point. If a nationalised industry makes a large profit, does the Minister expect, in that event, that it should be entitled always to plough it back into the industry, except for 3½ per cent., which is interest payable on the loan?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Without studying the Act, I should have thought that a large profit might well be used for amortisation of stock, which in many cases would be very satisfactory, but I do not think that aspect of the matter overcomes the difficulty which I put to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to speak for three-quarters of an hour? There are a number of points which hon. Members would like to make, and if he intends to speak for three-quarters of an hour perhaps we might interrupt him to make them briefly. If, on the other hand, he intends to speak for only part of the time, why did he not wait until the end of the debate?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Speculation on the length of House of Commons speeches would, I think, be going into the equity

business. I hope I shall not weary the Committee for the length of time the hon. Member suggests, although I can give no undertaking if points are put to me. I hope for my sake, as well as that of the Committee, that I am not guilty of such prolixity.

The Chairman: Even if the Minister goes on for such length of time, we are to have more or less the same subject again at seven o'clock, so that speeches not made on this Bill could be made then.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), who was good enough to let me know that he would be unable to be present at this stage of the debate, said that the local points which he raised were points raised without notice and that he did not expect a firm and definite reply to them tonight. I am aware of the particular problems affecting the City of Lincoln, through the level crossing to which he referred, and I am anxious, both through my connection with the B.T.C. and in other Ministerial capacities, to do what I can to overcome the difficulty. Dealing with his question on inland waterways, I may say that the Transport Commission has recently had a board of survey under Lord Rusholme which has been looking into the question generally.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) referred to the modernisation plan as being the main justification for the Bill. Broadly, I will agree with him, but I think that in any event it would have been necessary to ask Parliament to increase the Commission's borrowing powers in view of the fact, which I disclosed on Second Reading, that it had reached within £22 million of the permitted maximum under the 1947 Act, as amended by the 1953 Act.
My hon. and learned Friend also asked about the charges scheme. The Commission is still discussing the proposed charges scheme with the various interests concerned and hopes to get it to the Tribunal before many weeks have passed. The discussions have taken longer than was originally hoped, but I think the Committee will agree that when proposals of this sort are being put forward it is sensible that the fullest possible explanation should be given to those who may be very seriously concerned. The Commission has been most painstaking in its


discussions and explanations, which may ultimately help to secure that the charges scheme takes less time in the later stages.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) asked for the reasons for the increase in the proposed borrowing powers from £275 million under the present Statute to £600 million. I do not think I can add very much to what I said on Second Reading. As far as we can calculate, this increased borrowing should take the Commission over a period, perhaps, up to 1959.
As I then said, it is very much a matter of judgment how one fixes the figure in these borrowing powers Bills. One school of thought says we should make it a large figure so as not to cramp the industry concerned, but there is also the point of view of the rights of the House, and if we ask for a very large figure the House will be deprived for longer than is strictly necessary of its rights to investigate the affairs of the industry concerned in this way. Broadly, therefore, as the borrowing powers would run the Commission, we thought, until 1959, we thought that was about right and about in accordance with precedents for other increased borrowings which have been effected by Parliament under recent Acts.
The hon. Member asked whether this borrowing was for the contemplated deficit. It is only indirectly, in the sense that I have already tried to explain—that in our view and that of the Commission it will greatly improve the Commission's capacity to earn its living by obtaining up-to-date equipment. He also asked what the area authorities were doing, and I have obtained the latest information on the subject. They have taken over responsibility as from 1st February and are already at work on the examination of works and equipment projects, trend of traffic receipts, punctuality of trains—that may appeal to the Committee—availability of locomotives, staff appointments, productivity and budgets for 1955.
They are getting down to the job which, during the debates last autumn, I forecast they would undertake. Even at this stage they are entering into their duties with very great enthusiasm which, I hope, will be of great assistance to the administration.

Mr. Popplewell: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the salaries are to be?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member, or some other hon. Member, asked that question in the previous debate. These appointments are not made by me, but by the Commission. In those circumstances, it is not for the Minister to refer to salaries of appointments he has not made. Salaries for appointments he makes are stated annually. I do not deny any information I can give to the House. I hope the hon. Member will realise that if we go into the sphere of the Commission on appointments it makes, and start specifying salaries of a particular set of men, no doubt all the salaries would have to be given. I do not think that that would be satisfactory or reasonable.

Mr. Popplewell: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a different type of appointment from those to the administrative or executive side of the Ministry's service. This is a body which was deliberately forced on the Commission, as it were. I know the Minister will say that it is the Commission's own scheme, but the Commission had to think it out in consequence of Government direction. I think that it is rather different from asking for the salaries, for instance, of those actually employed by the Commission in an administrative capacity. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is usually very frank with the House and I hope he will find some way of giving us this necessary information.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not wish to conceal anything, but, as I said—after consideration—on the previous occasion, I thought it would be wrong and it would have far wider repercussions if we were to start retailing individual salaries in respect of appointments made by the Commission. Salaries in respect of appointments I make appear in the White Paper.
The hon. Member also asked whether some of this borrowing would be used to provide amenities for the staff. I need only refer him to paragraph 104 (d) of the Report on Modernisation and Re-equipment, which says:
It will also be essential to incur expenditure upon staff welfare. The term welfare covers a wide variety of items, including such things as messrooms, canteens and hostels;


lavatory and washing facilities; and social and recreational activities. The standard of accommodation and working amenities have a powerful influence on staff recruitment.
I think the hon. Member will find that satisfactory.
The hon. Member also asked whether the work to be financed by this borrowing was expected to be remunerative. The answer is yes. I gave the House some figures on Second Reading. I would hesitate to inflict them on the Committee now as they are set out in the modernisation plan. Briefly, the answer is "Yes."
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) made some rather violent comments, if he will allow me to say so, on certain matters relating to catering on the railways. For once I found myself in some agreement with the hon. Member for The Hartlepools, when he said that exaggeration in criticism tended to devalue the effect of the criticism. I thought my hon. and gallant Friend was, in some respects, unfair to some of those concerned; that was surprising for him. I believe that the service in railway dining cars is excellent. I have a very high regard indeed for the cheerful and efficient willingness of dining car staffs to serve a large number of meals to a very large number of passengers in a short time, sometimes in a rapidly moving train in conditions for cooking which most hon. Members would not like to undertake. I have a very high regard for them and I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend has, too.
The quality of the food which is supplied is a perennial subject of discussion. Hon. Members who have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown know that it is a persistent subject for conversation. Of course, I am not going to maintain that the standard of cuisine in every dining car or station restaurant is as high as the Commission is striving to make it, but the general charges are quite unfair. The standard is at least as good as that on Continental services when considerations of prices of food are taken into account. I say that with some confidence because it falls to me at present to travel a great deal; therefore, I can give firsthand evidence.
I am not for a moment indicating that anyone is complacent about this. There are people who take the view that the

culinary arts are not arts in which this country excels, whereas others like the old-fashioned English cooking. I would not say there is not considerable room for improvement, but I ask the Committee to realise that they are taking a great deal of trouble to try to improve the standards of food. As pointed out in paragraph 71 of the Report on the Modernisation and Re-equipment they are experimenting with different types of catering vehicles to meet the very varied type of services which passengers on different lines require.
I did not follow my hon. and gallant Friend at all on the question of hotels. I know of some excellent British railway hotels. It would be a great pity, not least from the point of view of the British tourist industry, if persons who have not had the experience of staying in them were deterred from doing so. I do not want to read out the list, but there are some very fine hotels. I will not follow the hon. Member for The Hartlepools by mentioning a local one—

Mr. Ernest Davies: There is no railway hotel in Kingston.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We have some very good hotels in Kingston. We want to improve railways hotels. No one wishes to minimise the wartime difficulties through which we have been, but there are some very fine hotels.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools referred again to the debate on Second Reading and, in particular, to the calculations he and other hon. Members had made of the size of the deficit in which the Transport Commission will be involved in future years. It is very difficult to give precise forecasts when there are factors, including favourable factors, which may well affect the figures as the year, and the years, pass. I do not think it is either wise or encouraging to underrate the factors which can operate to reduce the prospective deficit. As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out during the Second Reading debate, one factor is the charges scheme. That certainly should help the Commission's revenues directly and indirectly.
The hon. Member also referred to the joint consultation work going on with a view to increasing the efficient working of the railways. That may well contribute a substantial saving. There are the first fruits of modernisation. From some


points of view I think there is a little confusion about this. There are schemes which have been assimilated into the modernisation plan which were planned before and are very near to actual operation. There are some of what we might call modernisation schemes running at the moment, such as the diesel railcars in the West Riding of Yorkshire which, I am glad to say, are showing very satisfactory commercial results.
Results are coming in from electrification schemes north-east from London already undertaken. There is reason to hope that as some of the early schemes come into operation they may have some effect on the size of the deficit. While it is easy to make calculations, to take figures which were mentioned before the Court of Inquiry and to add figures to them, I find it difficult to accept figures of that order, because we must see how the favourable factors to which I have referred operate in reducing those figures.
6.30 p.m.
To pass more generally to the issue, of course nobody likes to see a great undertaking facing deficits of this order. On the other hand, it has been the experience of many great undertakings to pass through periods when they have not been able to earn a profit and to come successfully through such periods. Therefore, one must put the matter to some extent in proportion.
Certainly, I see this matter very much from the point of view that there is, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East called it, a transitional period to be passed through; that we are now taking steps—I believe, effective steps—whose ultimate effect will be to restore the solvency of our railway system; and that it is necessary, in the interim, to face the fact that there will be substantial deficits for a time but that this should not be allowed to blur the picture of an enterprise whose future is on soundly based lines.
I do not want, therefore, to be led into speculations as to precise figures. Our object—and Sir Brian Robertson has made very clear that it is his object—is to get the deficit reduced by increased efficiency as quickly and effectively as possible, and I have the utmost confidence that he and his colleagues will do all that human skill can do to help to bring about that result.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), after observing, which gave me great pleasure, that there was nothing static about transport—I was grateful for that tribute—referred to the possibility of a reorganisation of the Commission's stock. I am not sure what he meant by that. The position is that liability for the service of that stock was placed under the 1947 Act on the Commission and guaranteed by the Treasury. Therefore, any reorganisation such as, I think, the hon. Member had in mind could only have the effect of putting the liability which would follow, not upon the Commission, but on to the taxpayer. That is an inevitable consequence of the solution arrived at in 1947.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) asked some pertinent questions about the effect on the Commission's financial position of the borrowing proposed by the Bill and of the modernisation scheme. It is on the clear view that this scheme will help to improve the solvency of the Commission and will help it to be in a position in which it can earn a reasonable modicum of profit, that these proposals are put forward. The whole intention is that they should operate in this way, and they have been most carefully considered by the Commission with that objective in view. That is so clearly set out in the modernisation plan that the Committee would probably resent it if I went into great detail. It is clearly set out in the Commission's own words.
The hon. Member referred, naturally and properly, to the question of timing. I have to some extent dealt with that in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools. It is clear that there are items in the modernisation proposals which can be expected to help the finances of the Commission in the not very distant future. There are other items—some of the major electrifications, for instance—which will be some years before they are able to help in that way, but we can look forward as electrification and the use of diesels on certain individual lines go forward, to some improvement in net earnings on those lines and, therefore, to a favourable tendency. That deals with the point, to which the hon. Member himself very properly referred, of the desirability of maintaining the solvency of the Commission.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East also suggested the use of shorter-term borrowing. I am not sure that when one is borrowing for capital purposes of this order, it is sound finance to borrow short. This money is required for long-term projects which, we hope, will provide a railway system which will be useful for a good many years. I am inclined to think that the line we have followed on the date of the stock has been about right, but I will certainly bring forward the hon. Member's suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether we could usefully take up that idea. But soundness of finance calls for fairly long-term borrowing.

Mr. Holt: I agree on the last point, that it does not seem advisable to borrow the money on short-term, but as the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, other businesses go through this stage when they have a bad time. They, of course, can pay no dividend. They do not pay even their preference service. Has the Minister nothing to offer the Transport Commission on this line? If he will not accept any of the suggestions that have been made, is the Treasury prepared for a period of three, four or five years to implement the guarantee, because the Commission simply cannot pay this money?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the contrary, the hon. Member is quite wrong. The Commission can, and is, maintaining the service of its stock, and it would be unfair to suggest the contrary. The hon. Member is up against the difficulty of the totally different financial structure of a nationalised industry to a private business. He must face the fact that a nationalised industry obtains the advantage of a Treasury guarantee, to which I have referred, but which also has certain disadvantages. The contrast, however, is not quite as vivid as that, because a private industry that is unable to pay the service on its debentures finds itself in difficulties even though it may be possible not to pay dividend on the ordinary stock. The hon. Member is putting too sharp a contrast between the two, but there is, of course, an element of that.

Mr. Douglas Jay: As we are dealing with such large amounts, and, presumably, we want to

keep down the interest rate if we can, will the Minister look seriously at the suggestion that there might be a sound financial case for borrowing fairly short? After all, we anticipate that in fifteen to twenty years' time the revenues of the Commission should be much more favourable than they are now.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I have said, I have taken note of the point and will see that it is considered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Treasury is well equipped to advise on matters of this sort and is very helpful in connection with issues of this kind. The Treasury's advice, as the right hon. Member knows, because at one time he contributed to it, is generally very useful.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East asked whether we had been in contact with the Commission in connection with its financial position. I am in the closest contact with the Commission on this and all issues, and we know each other's minds very well. The hon. Member also asked for further information on the timing of certain works and referred particularly to Route C. I hope the hon. Member will not think it discourteous if I "pass the buck" on Route C to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who will be speaking during the debate on the British Transport Commission Private Bill, which begins at 7 o'clock. Powers in respect of Route C are sought in that Bill. Probably I should be guilty of anticipation if I were to talk about it now, but, in any event, the issue is likely to arise; and I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. It will probably save the time of the Committee if I leave it to my hon. Friend to deal with the matter on the Private Bill.
The hon. Member asked one or two questions about other earlier works. As he pointed out, I mentioned in the earlier debate some of the works on which the £75 million involved in the Bill would be spent in the earlier years, and, therefore, I shall not go over them again now. The hon. Member is quite right in assuming that the Commission intends to use some of its own resources, in addition to the money that it borrows under this Bill, to enable it to make progress, I hope, with other works during the same period.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East may recall that on Second Reading I said that the Commission had indicated


that it would publish yearly forecasts of work, with a less firm but helpful forecast for the second year ahead, and that as those forecasts are submitted, it will become apparent how the work is done. I cannot now add further details of the work, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman himself would not want the Commission to be tied in too rigid a framework of a time table. It will keep the public informed by way of those annual forecasts to which I referred.
I am very glad that the Committee, as I understand, takes the view that it is right to allow this extension of borrowing powers. We are at a significant and important moment in the history of the Transport Commission in general and of the railways in particular, and I know that the Committee will wish Sir Brian Robertson and all the members of the Commission well in the skilled and difficult job of seeing that this money is spent in the way most conducive to an efficient and up to date railway system.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, SCOTLAND (MINERAL DEVELOPMENT)

6.42 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I beg to move,
That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Scotland) Regulations, 1955, dated 28th January, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.
These Regulations, of which approval is now sought, have been made by the Secretary of State under the powers conferred on him by Section 78 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, and Section 56 (3) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1954. I think it right to remind the House that these are the Regulations which were laid in a somewhat imperfect form on a previous occasion, and, due to the vigilance of hon. Members opposite, were withdrawn. They are now laid again. I apologise to the House for the

error which occurred on that occasion, and for having to take up the time of the House again in reintroducing them.
The Regulations have been discussed with the local authority associations and with the principal trade organisations concerned, and they have been approved by them in principle. The only difference between these Regulations and the corresponding English Regulations, which were approved by both Houses in December, are those necessitated by the difference between the laws of the two countries.
When approval of the English Regulations was sought, a very full explanation was given, and I do not think that the House would wish me to repeat it now. If it does, I am quite ready and willing to do so. There are no particular Scottish points that arise. It may be that the House would wish me to give a full explanation again on this occasion. I should think it would be rather an imposition on the House, and if, as it seems, the House thinks so, in view of the lengthy explanation that was given previously, I content myself with thus simply moving the Motion.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, these Regulations are a repetition of the somewhat imperfect Regulations that we discusssed in this House on 21st December, and I am hopeful that we shall be able to dispose of them in a somewhat shorter time than it took us to discover that the last Regulations were so imperfect as to make it impossible for us to deal with them.
The Regulations which the House discovered could not be passed on 21st December had previously been agreed to in another place on 16th December. It is not for me to inquire how the Government were able to withdraw Regulations passed in another place and to put forward these Regulations and ask another place to approve them. They are substantially the same Regulations.
I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will now agree that on that other occasion on 21st December he did, perhaps unwittingly, mislead the House. He said:
The hon. Member"—


that was myself—
will be aware that most of the insertions are in respect of Regulations that were made under previous Acts and are merely repetitions of the previous Regulations. They are not new.
He said that in response to my complaint that the roneod Regulations we had before us had a great number of inked insertions. He was there saying, I think the House will agree, that most of those insertions were in respect of Regulations there were merely repeated. I thought he was wrong, and, of course, I checked the point later, and I found that a great many of the insertions were in respect of Regulations which were new.
Then he said:
Hon. Members will remember that the Royal Assent to the Town and Country Planning Act was received on 25th November, and it was necessary that these Regulations should be laid at the earliest possible moment.
He went on to say that there was no question of disrespect, etc. He was then giving the House the impression, I think, that there was not time between 25th November and 21st December, or 9th December, when the Regulations were laid, to have the Regulations printed in the normal way.
I ventured the opinion that night—21st December—that the English Act had received the Royal Assent on the same date, namely, 25th November. I have, of course, consulted the record, and I have found that the English Act received the Royal Assent on the same day as the Scottish Act, but the English Minister found it possible to have the Regulations printed, and submitted to the House in the proper form.
Then, when Mr. Speaker had said that what the House was discussing was Regulations that were laid in the Library, and we complained that each of the insertions had not been individually initialled, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said:
I think that if the original copy which was laid is consulted it will be found that all the alterations have been initialled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1954; Vol. 535. c. 2711–19.]
In fact we consulted, and Mr. Speaker consulted, the copy that was made. Not only were the insertions not initialled, they were not even in the copy. I recall these things to show that it was fortunate indeed that some of my hon. Friends were

awake at that date and saw to it that we did not pass Regulations which were imperfect.
I do not want to delay the proceedings, but I should be glad if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could say a few words about Regulation 5, which is a re-enactment of an old regulation. It provides that
in the event of a revocation or modification of planning permission…
compensation may be claimed in respect of buildings, plant or machinery which the applicant is unable to use or can use only at a loss. In such circumstances, how will the compensation be measured? Will account be taken of the possibility of disposing of the buildings, plant, or machinery by sale?
Quarrying plant and machinery provide an appropriate example. The modification of planning permission might lead to greatly reduced activity in the quarrying operations. The owner of the quarry might be in a position to say that, with his restricted planning permission, plant and machinery costing £5,000 would be adequate for his new purpose, but the plant and machinery which he had on the spot had been installed three years earlier, when he had wider planning permission, and that plant had cost him £10,000.
How would compensation be measured in such a case? Plant and machinery might have been transferred to another quarry undertaking and appropriate plant and machinery might have been brought into the quarry. I should be grateful if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could give us some explanation of how the old Regulation worked, and how it is intended that Regulation 5 should operate.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I rise only because I like to finish a speech once I have started it. Hon. Members will find that HANSARD of 21st December reports you, Mr. Speaker, as saying:
… and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has the Floor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 2720.]
As a result of a considerable number of points of order arising during my speech, we eventually reached the position where you, Mr. Speaker, ruled that the Regulations which had been laid by the Gov-


ernment were completely ultra vires and had to be withdrawn. I now have the opportunity of completing my speech.
We had on that occasion an opportunity of seeing how the official mind works. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in introducing the Regulations on that occasion, said that we had a long explanation of the English Regulations and that there was really no point in going over the Scottish Regulations. That was perfectly true, because we find on comparing the original Regulations made by the Secretary of State with the copy which was corrected in ink that practically every correction was designed to bring the Scottish Regulations entirely in line with the English ones.
If I had gone through the copy to discover exactly why all the changes were made, I could have prepared a very long speech to deliver on such questions as why there was a comma in one place in the English version and one in an entirely different place in the Scottish version. If the Scottish Department would work on its own Regulations, ignoring copies of the English equivalents, and do its own work, it would not get into the mess into which it got on 21st December. I sincerely hope that the Scottish Office has learned that lesson from what happened on that occasion.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I also took a certain interest in the previous occasion when the Government tried to get these Regulations approved by the House. On this side of the House we were very keen to expedite the business, but then we discovered that the Regulations had been wrongly laid, and that there were three different versions, some of the roneoed copies containing insertions whilst none had been made in other copies. When that information reached you, Mr. Speaker, you in your wisdom asked that the matter should not proceed further that day.
I can assure you tonight, Mr. Speaker, that I have examined the copy of the Regulations in the Library and, so far as

my knowledge goes, I find it correct in every respect. I see on the Front Bench one of the Lords Commissioners to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Oakshott), who signed the Regulations. He may be able to deal more competently with a rather complicated point in the Regulations than can the Joint Under-Secretary of State.
The point arises on Regulation 20, which states:
Where any interest of a lessor or a lessee under a mining lease is compulsorily acquired as mentioned in subsection (1) of Section 31 of the Act of 1954, the amount of compensation payable under subsection (1) of Section 32 of that Act to the less or or the lessee shall, notwithstanding any other provisions of that section, be ascertained as follows—
that appears to be an awfully long preamble to the words—
(a) the amount of the unexpended balance of established development value attributable to the lessor's interest shall be the whole of such balance reduced by…
The Regulation then enumerates various things which I will not now bother to read.
The Regulation appears to me to be quite incomprehensible. I should like the Joint Under-Secretary or the Lords Commissioner, who signed the Regulations with full knowledge of what he was doing, to explain how this
unexpended balance of established development value….
is ascertained. If compulsory acquisition of mineral rights in certain land in Scotland is undertaken, how will these unexpended balances be ascertained? I know that in local authority circles great difficulty has been experienced in the past in trying to measure the value remaining after the construction of certain roads—through Ayrshire, for example—or after the building of municipal houses in areas where coal has been extracted. I should like some information on that point—

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business),  further Proceeding stood postponed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months."
As will be seen from the Order Paper a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), have joined together for the purpose of moving this Amendment. The reason for it is that we object to a specific part of the Bill, namely, Part III, under which the British Transport Commission seeks to close certain waterways, and we are objecting particularly to the closure of the Haddiscoe New Cut.
I should very briefly like to tell the House the story of the Haddiscoe New Cut. I have already told a number of hon. Members by whom I have been approached, as has the hon. Member for Lowestoft, about the Haddiscoe New Cut. It originated in 1827 when this House was mostly concerned with the Corn Laws and Catholic emancipation. At that time, in Norfolk, there was the great port of Norwich from which ships went to sea via Great Yarmouth, and for some years prior to 1827 the rivers from Norwich to Yarmouth had begun to silt up. It was because of that that a way was sought to get the ships from Norwich to the sea via Lowestoft. So, in 1827, this Cut was started and the rivers were deepened so that the ships could sail from Norwich to Lowestoft. The Cut was built at a cost of £150,000 and it was opened in 1833.
All those years ago my constituency of Great Yarmouth put up a tremendous fight against having the Haddiscoe New Cut and those towns would gladly have closed it before it had ever been opened. But things have altered and on this occasion, 120 years later, the hon. Member for Lowestoft and myself and a number of other hon. Members are completely at one in that we do not want to see this waterway closed. The Haddiscoe

New Cut was sold to the railways because of financial failure.
I think it would be helpful if I described very briefly the present use of the New Cut. It is used perhaps mainly for pleasure craft using the Norfolk Broads, which, as everyone in the House knows, is one of the playgrounds of Britain. The suggestion that the Haddiscoe New Cut should be closed is of such moment to yachtsmen throughout the length and breadth of Britain that many hon. Members havefound their postbags full of letters from yachtsmen complaining about this proposed closing.
The second use of the Cut is for ships going to Norwich and to Cantley Sugar Beet Factory, which is also in my constituency. I should like to explain very briefly what the effect of the closure would be as we see it. First, I need hardly say very much further about the pleasure craft except that one of the reasons for objecting is that the Haddiscoe New Cut has been a useful part of the Broads to yachtsmen because, if the craft could not go through the Cut which is two and a half miles long, they would have to go round by the rivers Yare and Waveney which, in fact, the Cut joins together, and the journey, instead of being two and a half miles, would be about nine and a half miles and not altogether safe for inexperienced yachtsmen, whom one meets sometimes on the Broads.
Another factor, of course, is that the closure would mean that the route from Norwich to Lowestoft would be closed for shipping. I will leave completely to the hon. Member for Lowestoft that part of the effect of the closure, because I should like to mention the question of water levels, which is of the greatest possible concern to many people, particularly in my constituency of Great Yarmouth, which suffered so severely in 1953 from the floods and again in December last year.
If I may, I should like to quote two passages to the House, one from the Petition against the Bill by the East Suffolk and Norfolk River Board and the other by the Great Yarmouth Corporation. The East Suffolk and Norfolk River Board, in its Petition, says this:
Although, by forming a connection between the rivers Yare and Waveney, the primary purpose of the Haddiscoe New Cut is to provide a direct and unobstructed passage for vessels proceeding from Lowestoft to


Norwich, the Cut also has important land drainage functions and for that reason the Cut, together with the rivers Yare and Waveney, have been designated main rivers. The banks of the Cut protect the low lying land behind from flooding by water from the two rivers. Moreover, since at high tide the level of the River Waveney at one end of the Cut is higher than that of the River Yare at the other, it assists in equalising the two and thus reduces the pressure on the banks containing the rivers. These banks protect valuable marsh lands and your Petitioners view with the gravest apprehension any proposal which might have the result of increasing the danger of flooding those lands.
The second quotation from the Great Yarmouth Petition reads:
Your Petitioners point out that very high tides are not infrequently experienced in the lower reaches of the Rivers Yare and Bure. The margin of protection against flooding in the borough is very small, and any reduction in the total area of the waterways which would normally help to take up the tidal rise must affect the ultimate level of the rivers in the borough and increase the risk of flooding. Your Petitioners are seriously concerned, therefore, that the closure of the New Cut would increase the risk of such flooding and especially is this so having regard to the amount of flooding which has already occurred in the borough during the past two years.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the people of Yarmouth, who once opposed the making of the Haddiscoe New Cut, are now equally opposed to its closing on this ground alone, quite apart from the fact that there are many yachtsmen who want to use it for yachting purposes.
Perhaps I may further give a list of some of the people who are opposing the closure of the Cut. It is quite impressive. It includes the Norfolk County Council County Planning Committee, the Blofield and Flegg Rural District Council, which is in my constituency, the Norfolk and Suffolk Yacht Owners' Association, the East Suffolk and Norfolk Rivers Board, the Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Commissioners, and the Great Yarmouth Corporation. In addition, there have been floods of letters from people all over the country, not stereotyped letters in an organised campaign, but letters written from the hearts of the people concerned. And, of course, there have been letters from yachting associations as well.
I believe that the British Transport Commission has to watch carefully its expenditure and is being harried all the time to make economies and to be efficient, which is proper. Therefore, it is understandable that it should seek to try to be relieved of its responsibilities

where the Haddiscoe New Cut is concerned, if it is to be a costly matter, as the Commission says it is. What I do not think is reasonable is that the Commission should have brought forward this Bill without approaching one of the authorities concerned before so doing. It would have been helpful, and perhaps have avoided this difficulty, if the Commission could have consulted previously with the various authorities to see whether some arrangement could be reached by which the Cut could be kept open.

Mr. Arthur Holt: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether those bodies which are against the closing, such as the Norfolk County Council County Planning Committee, were prepared to get together to keep the Cut open and so relieve the Transport Commission of the cost?

Mr. Fell: They have not had a chance to get together because they were not asked, and that is the point to which I was leading. I hope sincerely that we shall be able to prevail upon the Transport Commission to withdraw this part of the Bill so that, during the coming months or years, it may try to find some other way of getting out of the difficulties, and at least go to the length of having full discussion with all the interested bodies to try to find a more equitable solution. I hope that the speeches which will be made in support of this Amendment will have the effect of bringing common sense to bear on this issue.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I beg to second the Amendment.
I regret, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) does, the necessity for putting down an Amendment of this character. The hon. Gentleman said he has a great deal of sympathy with the British Transport Commission, and so do we all. It is true, however, that I have been guilty on several occasions of taking exception to various proposals to effect economies put before us by the Commission, which has an intimate association with the economic life of Lowestoft. Yet the effect of this proposal to close the Haddiscoe New Cut has aroused so much opposition throughout the country that we feel it our duty, as representing the interests


concerned there, to take the action we are taking tonight.
The hon. Gentleman referred to correspondence from persons outside our own constituencies, from persons who have spent happy holidays on the Broads and feel that anything which causes the deterioration of this wonderful holiday resort, for that is what it is, can lead to nothing but a lack of appreciation of what is available there for the people of Britain. Practically every yachting interest in the country has supported the petitioners and the objectors to this Bill. Even our House of Commons Yachting Club, of which I have the privilege to be a member, has added its members to the list of objectors, and the post-bags of all hon. Members have indicated how widespread is the feeling of distress.
The hon. Member for Yarmouth has taken the main points of objection and I shall not reiterate them. It must be remembered, though, that however arduous is the responsibility resting on the shoulders of the Transport Commission—which, by the way it undertook voluntarily—the Commission, with other bodies, takes a good share of the emoluments arising from the influx of people into the Broads. Every year at least half a million people visit the Broads for their holiday amenities. Many come by road, but it would be idle to deny that the Commission takes a good rake-off from those who come by train. That is quite legitimate because the Commission boosts the Broads in its advertisements. There is hardly a station in the country which has not a picturesque Norfolk wherry sailing along the delightful waterways of the Broads.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, perhaps the main objection—at any rate, the most vocal and the most repeated—has come from those interested in the holiday traffic. For not only does the Commission derive a profit from that traffic, but all the towns and small villages in the periphery of the Broads benefit and are sustained in their economic life by this trade. Anything, therefore, which destroys the homogeneity of the Broads renders a great disservice to it.
If the Haddiscoe New Cut is closed it will have the effect of more or less—I do not want to exaggerate—cutting the Broads into two separate entities, with a

long, tortuous and rather dangerous tidal water lying on the route of yachts sailing between Lowestoft and Beccles. The Haddiscoe Cut is a calm, well-conditioned, safe waterway of vital importance to the holiday trade of Lowestoft and Beccles.
For those who are developing the Cut, another consideration is its use as a commercial highway. It is confidently predicted that the commercial traffic will increase. It is a grain passage between Yarmouth and Beccles; and it is a cheap and effective means of conveying beet, which is a very cumbersome load, and grain to their destinations.
The hon. Gentleman has discussed the agricultural implications of closing the Cut. It is a very highly technical matter. It must be remembered that the public bodies who are responsible for land drainage in the area have provided some of the strongest opposition. Not only have the river boards objected, but Beccles, in its petition, has scheduled as one of its main objections the danger of flooding if the Cut were closed. The Cut acts as a spill-away between two rivers, and unless there is a steady flow of water there it is probable that in exceptional weather and in conditions that we have known so well in recent years there will be considerable flooding in the low-lying agricultural areas of North Suffolk.
It has always been an ambition of mine to have the Broads made a national park. It is the best defined of all the areas designated in the Hobhouse Report as national parks. Its layout is such that one can almost step from the area which is outside the ambit of a national park into the area which is within its ambit.
The area provides facilities for many traditional English sports. It is interesting that Nelson learnt his sailing on the Broads. There are facilities for swimming, skating, fishing, bird watching and a whole host of other real British sports which call for an expression of individuality. [Laughter.] I know that there is a good deal of other sport there as well, but I do not like the kind of laughter now coming from hon. Members opposite. Anything that would destroy or lessen the value of such a wonderful asset as the Broads would be a great disservice to the community.
As I have said, the economy of towns like Beccles and Lowestoft is very much


bound up with the holiday trade. There are yacht builders, small boat builders and caterers who depend to a very large extent upon the Broads being an easy waterway on which amateurs can go without danger. I very rarely hear of any casualties on the Broads unless someone acts very stupidly indeed. It is a great training ground for yachtsmen, and it provides a healthy and reasonably cheap holiday for many people who describe themselves as sons of the sea, but have never been on a ship of any kind.
It is well known by now that those of us who have been urging the Amendment upon hon. Members—we are very greatly indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and other who have interested themselves in this great waterway—have been in touch with the Commission on this issue. I echo what the hon. Member for Yarmouth has said when I say I very much hope that at same stage in tonight's proceedings we shall be given some indication that the Commission is willing to forgo the Clause and to set up some form of negotiation with interested parties. The hon. Member spoke about the extent to which financial responsibility could be lifted from the shoulders of the Commission. It cannot be lifted wholly, because the Commission has a real economic interest in the maintenance of the Broads. I hope we shall hear about the possibility of making an accommodation in relation to the costs.
I hope that we shall be told something positive during the evening because those of us who are in favour of the Amendment would be only too happy if the past could be forgotten and all interested parties could get together to see what can be done. That is in the modern tradition. We do not wish to battle with anybody. We can give an assurance that if something of that kind is forthcoming we will do our duty and encourage the objectors to participate in negotiations with the object of arriving at some accommodation.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Michael Higgs: My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) have dealt faithfully with the question of Haddiscoe Cut. All I want to say on that subject is that even in my constitu-

ency, which is in the very middle of England, the matter has aroused some interest and I have heard something about it from my constituents.
I should like to know whether we might be given a little more general information about Clause 19, which provides for the closing of not only Haddiscoe Cut but a large number of other inland waterways which are set out in the Fourth Schedule. The Clause not only relieves the Commission of the obligation to maintain the waterways, including Haddiscoe Cut, but also extinguishes the rights that people may now have to use them.
I do not know what we are to be told about Haddiscoe Cut, but I invite the House to consider the form of the Clause and the machinery by which the Commission, in respect of not only Haddiscoe Cut but all the other waterways, is to get rid of its responsibilities. It may well be a very proper course for the Commission to say in respect of Haddiscoe Cut or any other canal, "With the leave of Parliament, we will give up our responsibilities," but is it necessary for the Commission to follow that by extinguishing the rights of all people who use the waterways?
Suppose, in the case of one of the waterways, that a number of other authorities got together and said they would take it over, that would not be much good if this Bill had passed into law, thereby extinguishing the right of people to use the waterway. Though I can appreciate that the Commission may have a good case in respect of many waterways for saying that in future it will not remain responsible for maintaining them, it seems a little gratuitous for it then to add that nobody else shall have any right to use the waterways even when the Commission ceases to be interested in them.
I do not know whether this Clause is intended to be a precursor of another to the same effect, or whether, in future years, all one will have to do is add names to the list in the Fourth Schedule. If it were to be so, I would regret that the matter had been handled in that way. Even in Private Bills things can often be slipped into Schedules without everybody realising precisely what they mean. I would rather that a machine was not


set up whereby it would be possible in future years to do that.
I should like to ask two further questions about two other Clauses. There is a power in Clause 7 to break up the surface of streets in London in the course of the construction of new railways in the city. I do not know why it should bethought, having authorised the railways to be constructed, that it is necessary to insert a special Clause to say that a street may be broken up. It would be interesting to know why it is necessary. If hon. Members will look at the Second Schedule, they will see mentioned some very important streets like Piccadilly, Regent Street and Oxford Circus.
My understanding of the position is that, if it be necessary and one gives this power to break up streets, the Transport Commission is not subject to the very detailed stipulations which were laid down in the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950 as to the procedure to be followed to minimise inconvenience to the public and the highway authority and expense and disorganisation. That is a matter of which the House approved at that time, but one would like to be assured that if such important streets in the centre of London are to be broken up for carrying out the works of the Commission, that the Commission would conform to such rules as can be enforced for securing the minimum inconvenience to the public and expense to the highway authorities.
Clause 15 of the Bill seems, if one reads Part I of the Third Schedule which goes with it, to end the right of the public, except on foot, to use a great many level crossings in a number of counties. One imagines that until the specified date—in fact, it must be so—these are level crossings which could be used, at any rate with bridle paths, and possibly for wheel traffic as well. It seems to be a fairly wholesale closing of public rights of way. I would like assurances that the public will not be seriously inconvenienced and that someone has considered alternative routes which are open to people on bicycles, or with motor vehicles and that no great damage is to be done to them.
I should be happier about the Bill if I were reassured on some of those points.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt: It would be a pity if the House agreed to the Amendment, although I have a lot of sympathy with the views expressed by the mover and seconder of the Amendment. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), following my interjection, said that this matter could be held up for a few months, or even a few years, and that then something might be arranged. The House has to face up to that kind of thing.
We have put upon the Commission the job of making both ends meet, and that has been emphasised by the 1953 Act. It is not the job of this House to prevent the Commission doing that by urging it to maintain unremunerative enterprises for one day longer than is absolutely necessary. I do not know how long this Haddiscoe Cut argument has been going on, but from the first moment it was mooted it would have been far better, if those interested had endeavoured to get together the interested bodies—like ratepayers and river boards—to see if any group could be arranged to take over the expense of keeping the Cut open.
If the House can agree this evening on the lines on which we ought to proceed in all these matters, we shall have done something useful. It would not be wise of us to ask the Commission again to look at this case of the Haddiscoe Cut and say to the Commission that in the next few years we should like it to keep it open to see if an arrangement could be made.

Mr. Fell: The Cut has not paid for 120 years. This is not a new problem.

Mr. Holt: The fact of the matter is that the railways have kept open many enterprises over the last 100 years which were unremunerative. It is not sufficiently realised that by the 1953 Act we have brought about a revolution in the operations of the railways, and that they are now open to the fullest competition of all kinds. It is just unrealistic to expect the Commission to keep open unremunerative enterprises and to make both ends meet.
I am an amateur yachtsman of very little experience. Although I have not operated on the Broads, I should like to do so on some occasion, and I am sure it would be wiser for me to go through the Cut rather than to take the nine-mile route.

Mr. Edward Evans: I should like to take up the hon. Member's point that we ought to have got together before we raised these objections. It is only a few weeks ago that I first saw the Bill and only a short time ago that these proposals were published. As the hon. Member knows, it is very difficult to get together a whole group of people without some sort of machinery for doing it.

Mr. Holt: I accept what the hon. Member says on that score and withdraw any imputation on his activities which I might have indicated.
I suggest that the proper procedure for all who are interested in this matter is, with great urgency, to find a way of keeping this Cut open, and to end putting the onus on the Commission. If the proposition is that the British Transport Commission gains something by having it open, then perhaps the Commission can be induced to pay its fair share of the cost. But that is a matter which can be considered.
I earnestly suggest that the House should make it quite clear tonight that it does not consider that the British Transport Commission has a duty to keep this Cut open when it is apparently agreed that that would be a completely unremunerative enterprise for the Commission to do so.

Mr. Garner Evans: The point is that the legal duty is on the Transport Commission at the moment. The Commission has to "carry the can "for this Cut. If I correctly understood my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), he says that it is the responsibility of the Commission to find other people who might together offer to take over the financial burden. But we should not be asked to find some nebulous bodies to get together. The responsibility is on the Transport Commission.

Mr. Holt: The responsibility for making both ends meet is also placed on the Transport Commission, and the reason why it is trying to remove these obligations is that this kind of obligation prevents it from carrying out the other. There will be more and more examples of this sort of thing being brought before the House with a view to our agreeing that these obligations should be taken away.
Having passed the 1953 Act, I suggest that we must meet this position fairly and squarely, and it will be very interesting—if, in fact, it is possible—to try to find people who are interested enough and consider Haddiscoe New Cut of sufficient value to the income of that area to make it worth while keeping it open. After all, it is no new thing for ratepayers to take on obligations in order to attract people into their area.
To take an example near my own area, Blackpool Corporation has spent thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money to develop Blackpool and to make it attractive in order that people might go there. The ratepayers thought that it was worth their while to do that, and the money was spent.
If the argument is that something is done to the Broads which will attract people to them, will improve their holidays, and will be an attraction to them to go again, then, surely, that is quite a proper obligation to place upon the ratepayers of Norfolk. On the other hand, if there is some matter in which the river boards are interested, such as looking after the water levels, and so on, they may be able to accept part of the obligation, but the House should make it quite clear tonight where it considers the obligation should lie.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I wish to support the hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Amendment, and to oppose the Motion for Second Reading.
Those hon. Members have made a specific objection to this Bill, and I want to associate myself with their objection in connection with the Haddiscoe New Cut. I have received many representations from constituents of mine who are yachtsmen; and, as one of my hon. Friends has said, these representations have not been made as the result of a nationally organised campaign, but have come to us because people have noticed something which affects their interests and their lives, and have written to their Member of Parliament about it. My constituency is far removed from the scene of this dispute, and yet constituents have taken the trouble to write to me about it, and I wish to associate myself with those who are objecting to this Bill on those grounds.
I have very great personal sympathy with those yachtsmen who object to the closing of the Cut. I think that those who spend their time" messing about in boats" spend it a great deal better than some of those who spend their time messing about in other ways. I would remind the House of the fact that the Army of our Kingdom was brought back from the beaches of Dunkirk by gentlemen who spend their time in that way and in learning the ways of the sea.
I also wish to raise a specific objection on a point which concerns my constituents in Ilford, North, and which, indeed, concerns the citizens of the whole Borough of Ilford. It is an objection on which I know I have the support of my colleague the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper). I refer to the Fifth Schedule to the Bill, which details lands which are to be acquired under Section 23. One of these parcels of land is to be acquired to provide a railway depot. The proposal is to build this depot on land which was leased by the Ilford Borough Council to the Seven Kings and Goodmayes Allotment Holders' Society, so that the members of the society might use that land for allotments.
I believe that the proposal to include that land in the Schedule is highly objectionable. I think so because, first, this land was leased by the borough council on a long lease to the society in good faith. In the second place, it is land which is protected by the Town and Country Planning Act, and was to be reserved as agricultural land. Thirdly, it is good agricultural land in an area starved of such land, and no suitable alternative land is to be found in the neighbourhood. On behalf of the members of the society, I want to support their objections.
Personally, too, I feel very strongly about the matter. I have been an allotment holder myself. When I was an undergraduate—

Mr. Edward Evans: That was a long time ago.

Mr. Iremonger: I am prepared to make full confession of my antiquity.
I only want to indulge in what I think is a reasonable reminiscence, namely,

that, when I was an undergraduate at the Mother of Universities, I followed the advice of the philosopher Voltaire, who, having surveyed the whole scene of human endeavour in his "Candide," came to the conclusion that the best advice he could offer to mankind was "cultivate your garden." Perhaps I took him a little too literally, for I did, in fact, lease an allotment from the Oxford City Council. [Interruption.] I defer to my Scottish hon. Friends who believe that St. Andrew's is the Mother of Universities.
I believe hon. Members opposite may also sympathise with me in my agricultural interests. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who I am sorry to see is not in his place, with his broad acres, would be only too glad to support this objection, to say nothing of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kongwa, with his interest in enterprises in Tanganyika. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is unnecessary."] Quite seriously, if I have given any kind of offence to the susceptibilities of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I hope they will accept a handsome apology, and I hope that I have not impaired their sincerity in supporting my objections to this Bill.
Seriously, I put it to the House that the members of this society, who are cultivating their gardens in this way, are a valuable and useful part of our national life. The rights of allotment holders should not be lightly brushed aside in the way they are—lightly and arrogantly brushed aside—in this Bill.
On general principles, too, I think this Bill shows an objectionable and dangerous tendency. It raises the question, which I think this House should face, whether this rapacious and arrogant Commission should be treated as a kind of sacred cow which may browse unchecked in everybody's gardens, and whether those who stand in its way should be treated in the way in which the Soviet Government treated the kulaks. I suggest that this House should show the Commission the red light by refusing to give a Second Reading to the Bill, and I believe that the grievances of my constituents afford the House a very good example of the grounds upon which it should do so.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I think we can leave to the judgment of the House which is the more arrogant—the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) or the Commission of which he spoke.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) found himself in a very accommodating mood this evening. He did not want to fight with anybody. I do not know whether any birds have been saying things in his ear about the fate of the matter in which he is particularly interested this evening, but I must confess that I feel not at all accommodating; in fact, most belligerent.
I want to raise a question on Clause 34, which deals with a bridge over the River Trent about nine miles above its confluence with the Humber, and about 17 miles north of Gainsborough—the Keadby Bridge. This bridge is a road and rail bridge over this very considerable river, and it is the only link with the West which Scunthorpe, a very important borough in my constituency, has.
Scunthorpe is probably the largest single steel producing area in the country. No less than 100,000 tons of coal have to go into Scunthorpe every week and about42,000 ingot-tons of steel come out of it. It is obviously a matter of vital concern to Scunthorpe if the bridge is to be closed. Under Clause 34, the Commission asks us to relieve it of its statutory duty to maintain this heavy, lifting bridge. It is like Tower Bridge, which is also a lifting bridge in that boats can go through the gap when the bridge is lifted without lowering their masts and funnels. It is obvious that if something is done to the bridge which closes it, the position becomes serious for Scunthorpe.
The Commission asks power to keep the bridge permanently closed. Apart from the Scunthorpe aspect of the matter there are certain villages along the banks of the river between the bridge and Gainsborough. I am not claiming that these are thriving ports. In fact, there is no navigational activity in them; but who is to say that they will not be developed in the future? We have seen all sorts of developments take place in this country, particularly with the transportation of oil. I am informed that it is by no means beyond the bounds of possibility that these small and, from the navi-

gational point of view, insignificant villages might become very important.
Then there is the interest of Gainsborough itself, a place which has a considerable river traffic. Up to the beginning of the Second World War, Gainsborough had a considerable coastwise traffic. Ships were able to come up to Gainsborough, because there was this lifting bridge over the Trent. Vessels of 9 feet or 10 feet draught are able to get to Gainsborough. During the war, when commerce was dislocated, and even after the war, these conditions remained. The result was very little coastwise traffic with Gainsborough.
Having regard to the lifting of restrictions which has taken place, not only just recently but for a considerable time—these restrictions have been progressively lifted since the war—the pattern of Gainsborough's trade has shown a distinct turn back to normal. If the bridge is to remain closed there will be an immediate effect upon the coastwise trade of Gainsborough.
One must not let one's imagination have too fanciful a flight, but one ought to consider that the Commission is asking us for power permanently to close the River Trent to coastwise traffic, or to all the parts of it that cannot take down their funnels and masts. What would be the cost if ever this country were involved in war again? I imagine that most hon. Members would come down on the side of dispersal rather than of concentration of port facilities. The smaller ports might again be of very great value. It is worth while to notice that aspect of the matter.
The Commission has a statutory duty to keep the bridge in good structural repair and to keep it as a lifting bridge. It has a duty not to delay shipping, let alone stop it altogether. It has allowed matters to slide—either the Commission or its predecessors; both, it may be. Now the Commission comes to the House and says, "This bridge needs repair. If we are to repair it we must shut the bridge for four months." That is the threat held over the local people living round about and in Scunthorpe. The Commission says, sweetly, "Ah, but if you will relieve us of the statutory obligation to maintain this as a lifting bridge it will be all right."
That is barefaced blackmail. If that bridge is closed for only one week, the borough of Scunthorpe and its steel works will be brought to a standstill. It may


come as a surprise to the Minister to hear that Scunthorpe, with its enormous steel works, employing 17,000 people, can be brought to a standstill if coal is not allowed to come in for the period of one week; but that is a fact. I am only stating what I am informed is true. It is impossible to alter that situation because it is not possible to find storage in sufficient quantities in the borough for fuel to maintain the steel works for a longer period than that.
This is plainly the holding of a very considerable pistol to the head of the community, when the Commission says, "We must close this bridge, or else—". We should take a very firm line. The Commission has a statutory obligation to maintain the bridge in repair and in such a state that it will work as a lifting bridge. Why was not repair carried out over a period of years? Why are we left to the last minute until we are told that the bridge must be shut, with the consequences to Scunthorpe which I have been relating?
My information—and I give it as information because I am not an engineer and have not been able to investigate the information as thoroughly as I should like to do—is that it would be necessary to keep the bridge shut only for a week or ten days to do the necessary repairs. My information is from a very good source. The bridge is like a forearm and pivots, as it were, from an elbow and it is at the elbow that the bed plates are worn. These bed plates can be removed by easy stages and the work done in a week or ten days, I am told.
I do not know whether that is true, but, if it is true, it seems to me odd that the Commission, whose honesty I would not impugn, says that four months are necessary. These people ought to get together. The Commission ought to find out how this work can be done so as to leave Scunthorpe unstrangled and so that the riparian interests and those of Gainsborough are preserved.

Mr. William Shepherd: What percentage of the barges—I assume they are barges—passing through the bridge have funnels and what percentage do not have funnels?

Mr. Mallalieu: I am not referring to the barges. There are many barges which

go under the bridge without the bridge being raised at all. The bridge was raised only fourteen times last year, but it used to be raised very much before the Second World War. The bridge stops coastwise shipping going up the Trent unless it can be lifted.

Mr. Shepherd: Surely Scunthorpe did not depend upon only 14 vessels which went through the bridge last year.

Mr. Mallalieu: I am sorry my remarks were unclear to the hon. Gentleman. We are talking of two different things. There are the navigation interests under the bridge that we have to protect, but that has nothing to do with Scunthorpe. Then there is road and rail traffic across or over the bridge which has to do with Scunthorpe particularly because of the railway which crosses the bridge. That is where the 100,000 tons of coal a year has to go.
Navigationally, this matter has nothing to do at all with Scunthorpe. My submission is that some means ought to be found whereby this bridge can be kept open to allow navigation to go up the Trent, and also that means should be found by which repairs can be done without preventing the coal from going over the bridge to Scunthorpe and the ingots from coming across the bridge in the other direction.
I believe that this could be done. The duty is laid squarely on the Commission at present to keep the bridge in good repair and as a lifting bridge. They are, of course, deriving profit from it, or should be, because they have their railways going across it. This is a much stronger case for leaving the onus on the Commission to find a solution than in the case of the Haddiscoe Cut, of which we have heard so much tonight.
There are, for instance, such things as stop weeks in Scunthorpe when the works are stopped, and weekends when there is not so much traffic, although there is a continuous working week in the steel works. I believe that if it were found necessary—to take an extreme case—this work could be done by easy stages, on Sundays only: and even if it meant keeping the repair men idle in mid-week, that would be a better way of doing it than to risk this impossible-to-contemplate injury to Scunthorpe by closing it for even a week on end.
I hope that the Minister will see to it that something is done about this matter. It is not common sense, in my submission, permanently to prevent coastwise shipping from going to Gainsborough or to the other places on the Trent; nor is it sense to allow Scunthorpe to be strangled when it is responsible for such an immense production of steel. I believe that accommodation could be found, and until it is found I am bound to say that I feel particularly belligerent.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I do not share the intensity of view evinced by my hon. Firend the Member of Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) about the British Transport Commission. On the contrary, I have a great admiration for the Commission and for the work which it has been doing, particularly since it has had the opportunity, in times of greater freedom, to manoeuvre and to show what is can do. For example, what a revelation it has been to many of us to discover that it is possible for railway meals to be produced that are fit to eat, and to enjoy them under conditions and with a quality of service which show that the British Transport Commission is not to be condemned out of hand.
Nevertheless, I agree that almost all that has been said this evening in connection with the various matters raised by this Bill gives one a certain amount of cause for disquiet. The Haddiscoe Cut is a notorious example of what I have in mind. I share the views of the sailors who are here this evening, although I reserve my position as one who does what little sailing he is able to do in a real boat and on real water at the coast. But I have no wish to trail my coat or to exacerbate the feelings of those who prefer to take their nautical pleasures in quieter backwaters. They are engaged in a perfectly honourable pursuit, and I view them with great respect and regard.
It seems to me, as it seemed to the mover and the seconder of the Amendment, and to other hon. Members who have spoken, to be a perfectly dreadful thing that the British Transport Commission, controlling this waterway, and knowing, as of course it must, the great importance of the part that it plays in the use of the Broads as a whole, should one day, in a document published, so far as I can see from the printed mark on

the back page, on 24th November, 1954, announce that the Haddiscoe Cut is to be closed with all that involves.
We have just had a dissertation about the Keadby Bridge. Here again, as we just have been informed, is a bridge which plays a vital part in the life of the country, and which has an importance almost as great as that of the Cut, I imagine, as the hon. Gentleman described it. It is certainly of very considerable importance, and its importance ought not to be overridden by the arbitrary decision of the British Transport Commission.
Paragraph 15 of this document refers to the operations that the Commission proposes to carry out in respect of certain level-crossings. The Schedule describes which are these level-crossings. Here, again, the Commission, as in the case of the Haddiscoe Cut and the bridge of which we have just heard, and in the case of almost every one of these level-crossings, is pursuing its perfectly proper activity of looking after the interests of its commercial operations.
It would be wrong for us to quarrel with it for doing that. After all, the railways have grown up in this country over a century or more, acquiring their rights and responsibilities by a multitude of Acts and the most confusing legislation that it is possible to conceive, and carrying with those rights certain responsibilities which were accepted by them from time to time in order that they might get the concessions to operate their commercial enterprises. These were the quid pro quos which were garnered about these railway enterprises over a long period of years.
We are now coming to a point where one statutory authority, the British Transport Commission, undertakes the cleaning up of this complicated mass of legislation in order to enable it to put its commercial operations on a sound basis, and what it is trying to do is to hive off all the "quos" in order to keep its hands on the "quids." I hope that is clear.

Mr. Holt: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's reading of railway history, but does he not think it fair to say that these obligations were foisted on the railways by this House and that there was, in fact, no quid pro quo?

Mr. Thompson: One hundred years is a long time, and no doubt all sorts of considerations have played their part in arriving at the situation which we find today.
I have no quarrel with the British Transport Commission for getting rid of the things which hamper it in conducting its commercial operations in an efficient way. But it seems evident, from all the speeches made about the Haddiscoe Cut, the Keadby Bridge, and the railway level-crossings, to which I have referred, that there ought to be some machinery, apart from this annual debate in the House of Commons, whereby the public interest in all these matters could be consulted.
It is not good enough to publish a document some time in November, for a debate to take place in this House some time in February, which is the usual pattern of this business, and then for an hon. Gentleman to say that if the Haddiscoe Cut is to be kept open to suit the convenience of yachtsmen for a limited part of the year, or if a bridge has to be kept in an operable condition for a different purpose from that of the use by the railways themselves, then the interested parties should have an opportunity of getting together before the Bill appears in this House. It is wrong to say that, because it simply could not be done.
It seems to me that the British Transport Commission itself would be very wise, in the interests of its own public relations with the great mass of the people, if, before it brought such a Bill before the House—it may have done so already; I do not want to condemn it out of hand—it consulted all the interests it knew would be hurt or outraged or affected, to try to reach a compromise.
For instance, it could try to sell the interest in the Haddiscoe Cut to the X.Y.Z. Yachting Club Ltd. or a joint committee of the local authorities on either side. There are a thousand and one ways in which the public interest in these matters could be preserved, and I very much hope that what has been said tonight, and what to my recollection has been said on other occasions on the occasion of the Transport Commission's annual Bill, will be taken to heart by the Commission.
I say this in no spirit of carping, nagging criticism but because the Commis-

sion, like ourselves, ought to be concerned with the broad public interest in all these matters. I hope that before the Commission brings before us a Bill next year, containing no doubt similar provisions, it will have satisfied our constituents, the people of this country, that none of these things are done mischievously or carelessly, but are done having due regard to the wider interests of the general public.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Mid-20th century needs demand that man should approach his problems in a big way, and I thought that the Transport Commission was beginning to approach its problems in a big way. But in my view the Bill should have been entitled, "Bill to empower the Transport Commission to construct works in London and the South of England." Why has the Commission confined its proposals to these limits? Why has it not introduced a more comprehensive Bill? What will be the total cost of these development works if the Bill becomes on Act?
We have just parted with a Bill, which will become an Act within a few weeks, which empowers the Commission to increase its borrowing powers from £275 million to £600 million, and about £70 million of that is to be used for modernisation purposes. As this Bill is being introduced within narrow limits, the expenditure upon the works proposed in it is bound to come out of the money which the Commission has already been voted empowered to borrow. On behalf of the largest industrial area in the country, I want to ask some questions, therefore, in the hope of getting answers from the Minister about that part of the country, in view of the fact that London and Glasgow are being given such preferential treatment in the proposals that are being made.
First, I wholeheartedly welcome the proposal to increase the borrowing powers, and I congratulate the Commission on at last adopting a policy of railway modernisation. Those of us who have advocated this policy for just over 10 years, and whose working lives have been spent in large-scale industry, know that it is no use advocating the maximum efficiency inside industry if there is a lack of efficiency as soon as we get outside the works.


British railways have been very much out-of-date for many years. The men in all grades on the railways have rendered great service, and my observations make no reflection on any of them. The railways made a great contribution in two world wars, so let it be quite clearly understood that any observations which we make on the Bill are no reflection upon the men. Their conscientious service deserved the grant of more capital expenditure to modernise the service than has been granted so far, and that is something which is to the everlasting discredit of all hon. Members and those outside who have acquiesced in this lack of development for so long.
All kinds of works are proposed here, but there is not one Clause in the Bill, nor has any statement been made, about the immediate effects of modernisation. I welcome modernisation because I come from one of the most efficient industrial establishments in the world, which, with two other concerns in this country, as is admitted, has been producing the finest diesel-electrics, diesel engines and gas turbines for many years. We have made our contribution to revitalising industrial countries all over the world, but have not been allowed to work for our own country.
Now, when at last we are to be allowed to work for our own country, we find that the development which is to take place is generally in the South of England and, in the main, in the London area. In spite of the fact that for years we have worked perfecting diesel engines, diesel-electrics, and modern motive power, even now we are not to be allowed to work for our own areas, but London, Glasgow, and the South of England in particular, are to receive preferential treatment. I will return to that point in a moment or two, but, first, the men who will be affected by the Bill and by modernisation are entitled to answers to some questions.
Any one who knows anything about the manufacture of diesel-electrics and diesel engines knows that these are complicated pieces of machinery of the most modern kind. We are relying upon generations of accumulated skill—the most highly-skilled men in management and among technicians—for the production of this new motive power.
When some smart people ask questions about aircraft, I often think they have

never made a contribution towards anything of a productive character. Talk is so easy; it is when we come to translate the talk into concrete realities such as the manufacture of aircraft and railway apparatus that we are put to the test and real manliness is brought out.
The men who have for so long been employed in the railway workshops, especially at such places as Crewe, North British in Scotland, the Gorton Tank, Swindon etc., are beginning to wonder how they will be affected when Bills of this character are implemented. As there is to be so much compensation in the London area, one would have thought that before such a Bill was presented to the House a definite statement would have been made from the Dispatch Box to allay the natural, uneasy feeling of the men who have spent their working lives in places such as Crewe, Swindon and others I have mentioned.
We cannot transfer the manufacture of modern motive power from the most highly-efficient plants in the world to other places without a good deal of consultation. I therefore want to ask the Minister whether that consultation has already taken place. Is the Minister sure that there will be the fullest possible collaboration between those who have this background of skill, as a result of manufacturing for the whole world market, now that they are to turn to manufacturing for the home market? Are the men employed in the railway workshops to have their skill and experience utilised in collaboration and co-operation with the managements who have for so long been turning out this new motive power?
If my memory is correct, there are nine Clauses covering London. I take second place to no one in my admiration for the capital of Britain, but London does not cover the whole country. To a very great extent this country depends on the large industrial areas, especially that in which I was born, live, and belong to. In that area 11 million people are working. They have made a great contribution in two world wars and are producing the most modern motive power, yet in the modernisation of British Railways London and the South are to get preference.
I therefore ask that before we part with this Bill the Minister will give considera-


tion to the need for paying early attention to this industrial area, where the density of population is greater than in any other area in the world. It has been my privilege to work with great men at Trafford Park, where 70,000 are employed. The transport facilities for those workers are really disgraceful and have become out-of-date long since. That area ought to have had preferential treatment and super-priority.
I am speaking for an area within a 50-mile radius of Manchester, extending to Crewe and Stoke-on-Trent, to Chester, Blackburn, and Preston. That great area is producing relatively more for the export trade than any other area of the country. It is time we began to speak out for these areas. For far too long have we acquiesced in this kind of development.
To reach the large industrial establishments in Trafford Park men have to travel from Stockport on one side and Wigan on the other. It is common for them every morning and evening to travel 10, 15, 20, or 25 miles. They have to change trains several times or transfer from one bus to another in all kinds of weather, in pouring rain, sleet, fog, and "smog." For far too long have we allowed needless suffering among people who serve the country so well. They have contracted colds and other illnesses needlessly owing to the lack of travelling facilities. I ask the Minister for an undertaking that an immediate survey shall be made of the area to see what steps can be taken to modernise transport there, and to introduce more efficiency of the same kind as that which the workers are called upon to display in their everyday employment.
Many transport facilities in that area overlap. There are very few through services from one city to another—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member. I think he can make the point, as he has done, that the scheme does not apply to his area, but I do not think he can go into the detailed provisions for that area.

Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; in view of your Ruling I shall limit what I have to say.
I should like the Minister to consult the Minister of Labour to see if there

cannot be more efficient transport facilities introduced to save man-hours and to avoid needless suffering and ill-health. It is generally accepted among people of all political thought that a large amount of needless suffering is caused when people have to stand in long queues waiting hours for buses and other transport facilities.
In the London area there is only one transport authority. As a result, arrangements can be planned and the whole picture can be seen at a glance. In the area of which I am speaking, I should say from memory there are at least 50 authorities. The result is that we cannot get an overall picture of the situation. Yet, where the concentration of population is greater than in any other part of the world, there is overlapping. Therefore, I feel that the time has arrived for the Minister to consider consulting the whole of the transport authorities in that area with a view to doing there what has been done in London. For that reason I thought I should be lacking in my duty if I had not taken advantage of the opportunity presented by this Bill to put forward these points.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) in his rather wide discourse on the railway and transport facilities in our part of the country. There may be another occasion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when we would risk your displeasure less than we do today. I would say, however, that the transport facilities of Lancashire and Cheshire are very inadequate and one hopes that fifty years will see a great improvement.

Dr. H. Morgan: The hon. Member is very cheerful.

Mr. Shepherd: I rise to express a point of view very different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and other hon. Members. We have listened tonight to a number of speeches by hon. Members who did not realise the new obligations placed on the Transport Commission, or seemed to ignore the whole effect of the 1953 Act.
I am well aware that in the manner in which these Bills are presented, there may be some cause for public offence. I readily agree that perhaps the Transport


Commission is not sufficiently sensitive to public opinion and does not consult people as much as it ought to do. One has to sell these changes to the community—it is an undoubted necessity to do that—and, no doubt, the Commission will draw some lessons from what has proceeded here tonight. Having said that, however, I hope we will realise that as Members of the House of Commons we have an obligation to the Commission and an obligation particularly in the light of its new status under the 1953 Act.
Much has been said tonight about the various means by which the previous obligations were laid upon the Commission and the railways. Of course, those obligations were not always of the railways' seeking. Consider, for example, level crossings, which we all regard as being rather a nuisance. It was not the wish of the railways of those days to institute level crossings. There was the option of providing either bridges or level crossings, but as most traffic in those times was horse-drawn, the farmers and others in the area plumped all the time for the level crossing. That is why we are paying for these frightful anomalies now.
It is also true—I say this in defence of the railways—thatthe railway system was laid down in such haste and, from many aspects, in so unseemly a manner that many things were done which ought not to have been done and which have reflected upon the system from the start. Hon. Members, therefore, should not say that because these obligations have been laid upon the railway system, they must remain there for evermore. They were wrong in the first place, they have been suffered for far too long, and we have every right to get rid of them now.
I have had probably as many letters as anybody in the House from constituents about the Haddiscoe New Cut. I did not know that so many of my constituents went to the Broads for their holidays. I have replied to them in very firm terms that it is not the duty of the Transport Commission to provide holiday facilities for people in my constituency. It is the job of, say, Mr. Butlin to provide holiday facilities, and certainly not the job of the Commission.

Mr. Ede: Does not the Commission run excursions to Blackpool?

Mr. Shepherd: That is true, but I do not think it runs excursions to Blackpool down the Haddiscoe Cut. I hope, therefore, that as Members of the House of Commons, we will realise our obligations and responsibilities.
The railway system is hopelessly excessive. There are far too many railways and canals, and we have to decide what we want the Commission to do. If we want it to be a sort of free and gratis Butlin, all well and good, but we cannot have an arrangement whereby it has to provide all kinds of amenities for the population and pay its way at the same time. We have to make up our minds whether we want the Commission to be the provider of amenities or to pay its way. That is the point I wish to stress tonight.
My own view is that the railways ought to be made to pay their way. If they are to pay their way, they must hive off the uneconomic elements within themselves. It is all very well hon. Members saying that if the railways were nice about it, they would get their own way without any difficulty, but it is only necessary for the Commission to say that it will close a branch line which is losing thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pounds a year, and numbers of hon. Members get up and shout about it in chorus.
We must make up our minds what we want the railways to do. If we want them to have thousands of miles of uneconomic rail and to run hundreds of miles of canal which will never have any value in terms of economics, all well and good; let us say that and tell the Commission that we no longer concede that the making of a profit or a loss in its accounts is of consequence. If, on the other hand, we take the view that the railways ought to pay their way, let us take our part in standing up against opinion which is narrow in its outlook and which is limited entirely by what I may consider to be selfish considerations.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I am generally in accord with what the hon. Member has been saying, but I think he would agree that if there were too strict an interpretation, all over our railway system of the principles which he is describing, there would be undue hardship. I am not talking about the


small uneconomic lines but am thinking of main lines running to the Highlands of Scotland, which are completely uneconomic. The hon. Member could not clear them all off simply because they were uneconomic.

Mr. Shepherd: I know that we have to place Scotland in a special category in all these things. Most of the economic activities of Scotland have to be carried at the expense of England and Wales. [Interruption.] Nothing that I said previously was in any way an attempt to evade that obligation. We realise that we have to keep Scotland at the expense of the resources of England.

Sir William Darling: Does my hon. Friend not know that the English export trade is sustained by Scotch whisky?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): This is not a debate on Scotland.

Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend's knowledge of whisky is much more intimate than mine. Therefore, I do not quarrel with him in anything he says about the whisky trade.
I want to return, as I want to finish my speech, to the fundamental point that we must bear in mind all the time what we intend the Commission to do. We have a right to expect that it will conduct its public relations in the manner best calculated to make these changes practical. That we have a right to expect. On the other hand, however, we have the obligation to accept these changes if no alternative arrangements can be made. For example, if it is impossible for the Haddiscoe Cut to be taken over as a financial responsibility by the local authority or the river board or by a special organisation, clearly this mileage must be closed, because it is not a practical proposition for the Commission.
Therefore, I ask the House, whilst not supporting the Commission in everything, to take the view that it has a difficult job to do, and that it has hundreds of miles of useless canals and hundreds of miles of useless railways and a great assortment of branch lines which are economic liabilities. We have to get rid of them if the system is to pay. We have the duty to explain some of these facts of life to our constituents.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: This debate has enabled a number of hon. Members to raise most interesting matters arising out of the Bill. In the very few minutes that I shall detain the House I want to bring right hon and hon. Members back to what those of us who support the Amendment and who are so intimately associated with that part of the country had in mind when we put it on the Order Paper. We wanted an opportunity of protesting against the closing of Haddiscoe New Cut.
I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans). I had hoped that long before this the Broads would have been declared a National Park. A decision to have made them one would have helped enormously in dealing with the problems that arise from time to time. I am a member of the Broads Advisory Committee in my constituency, and I am familiar with many of the problems. One of the main problems in connection with the Broads is that of keeping many of the waterways open. A few years ago I accompanied the Vice-Chairman of the National Parks Commission on a tour of inspection of some miles of the rivers and broads of Norfolk. He had not seen them before, and I think it is true to say that he was charmed with all he saw. The tour was, of course, arranged with a view, and I have not yet given up hope that Broad-lands may one day be designated a National Park.
Unlike many of the hon. Members who have spoken, I have known Haddiscoe Cut for many years as both a frequent passenger on trains which run beside it and, in my younger days, as a very amateur yachtsman. Of course, Haddiscoe Cut, as hon. Members who have been along it will know, does not compare in natural beauty with the charming stretch of the Bure below Wroxham Bridge, but I would emphasise that Haddiscoe Cut is a part of Broadland, and that, in addition to being used by a number of cargo vessels every year, it is used by many thousands of people from far away. I want that to continue.
I wish to emphasise that providing for the enjoyment of the very large number of visitors who come to Broadlands every year on holdiay bent has become a Norfolk industry. Harm will be done to


the industry if the movement of visitors is restricted, and their movement will be restricted if this Cut is closed.
As hon. Members have indicated, during the last few weeks those of them who did not know that the Haddiscoe New Cut existed, now know that it does. I assure those hon. Members who have come to discover it, that there is real alarm, not only among those visitors who come from far and near to sail upon it but also in the County of Norfolk itself, at the possibility of the Cut being closed. As has been emphasised, it is an important link between the Norfolk Broads and rivers and the Suffolk waterways. In the opinion of the Horning Sailing Club, which is in my constituency and represents no fewer than 700 members, the closing of the Cut would restrict the already congested waterways of the district.
I like one description of the Broads and the rivers of that part of the country as "the healthy playground of so many thousands." Indeed they are, and I, with many others in the County of Norfolk, want them to continue to be so. That description in itself is a very strong reason for keeping the Cut open. Reference has been made to the number of organisations and local authorities which are in opposition to the closing.
Norfolk County Council has been mentioned. As vice-chairman of the council I have to say that the council is not petitioning against the Bill, but that the county planning committee and the appropriate sub-committee of the highways committee have recommended that, as far as practicable, the county council shall support the move that has been and is being made to prevent the Cut being closed.
I hope that the volume of evidence, and indeed of opposition, will lead the Commission to think again and to exhibit a spirit of willingness to negotiate with the interested parties. I agreed with the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) when he said that it would have been much better if, before proceeding with the Bill and particularly before putting forward the Clause to close Haddiscoe Cut, the Commission had discussed the matter with the local authorities, the river board and the Yarmouth Port and Haven Commissioners.
Reference has been made to the fact that keeping open the Cut will involve a financial burden on the Commission. I should not like it to be thought that I cannot see this business from the point of view of the Commission. The Commission is faced with a costly scheme in maintaining the banks of the Cut and it can very well do without the cost and the Cut. Many people and organisations are concerned to keep the Cut open. I share the view which has been expressed earlier tonight that the financial burden involved in keeping the Cut open can be shared. Why should not the Commission, at this stage, call the interested parties and the local authorities together and ascertain what progress, if any, can be made towards this end? For the time being, until we have reached that stage, I as one of the Members from Norfolk must oppose the closing of the Cut.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Garner Evans: I entirely agree with everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), but the crux of the matter is who will bear the responsibility for keeping the canals open? It has become quite clear, not only from tonight's debate but from previous debates, that the Transport Commission is not only unwilling to keep the canals open but is finding every opportunity to try to close them down. That is the real issue. The legal responsibility rests upon the Commission and we must keep it there, because as yet there is no alternative.
I asked earlier, when interrupting the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), who was going to "carry the can" for the Cut. The Transport Commission will not do it. I do not see why it should, but, generally speaking, those of us who are concerned with keeping open the inland waterways are much more concerned with the amenity or pleasure value than we are about carrying "spuds," coal or iron ingots in and out of Scunthorpe. I hope that the Minister will not only say that he will help to keep Haddiscoe Cut open but will also look into the problem of how to keep our inland waterways open, how we can develop them and how we can enjoy them.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Ede: We have had a very interesting debate on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and seconded by


my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), and I must congratulate them upon the zeal and energy with which they have dealt with the interests of their constituents during the few days we have had in which this matter could really be effectively dealt with.
I would say to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), if they were here, that, before passing all the strictures they did on the opposition to this Measure, they ought to have asked what action had been taken by the Transport Commission. Let me describe what happened to me in the matter. As soon as the Private Bills for the Session were deposited I wrote to the Private Bill Office and asked that I might be supplied with a copy of each of them. They came during the Christmas Recess, and on 28th December, having disposed of the necessary attention to my great nephews and great nieces, I turned my mind to public affairs.
The first thing I did was I read the Transport Commission's Bill and particularly Part III and the Fourth Schedule, when, for the first time, I learned that there was a whole list of canals in the Fourth Schedule which it was proposed to close. We have heard a lot tonight about yachtsmen. I want to say that I am no yachtsman, but I have a 20-foot motor cabin cruiser and I took it on the Grand Union Canal last Whitsun. I was most courteously and efficiently treated by the Transport Commission, and even when my dynamo went wrong they provided me with the most efficient workman I have yet met who put it right straight away. Therefore, I have no complaints about the way the Commission run the canals that they mean to keep running, though I must add that they might keep the gear on the locks, even on the Grand Union Canal, in a much more efficient condition than they do.
While I was there, a bargee wanted to get his barge into the lock and I had placed my cabin cruiser in a certain position approaching it, under the orders of the lock keeper as harbour master, so that it might not interfere with the flow of traffic. However, the bargee, having to get by my cabin cruiser, asked, in language that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would not allow me to repeat, even as a

quotation, how he was to get his barge into the lock while lying near that—yacht. If you had heard him say that word "yacht," Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you would never want to be confused with yachtsmen again.
I want to make that point with reference to the Haddiscoe Cut. It is not yachtsmen who are the main users, as the word is usually understood, but the small cabin cruisers, hired vessels, in which a man of limited means takes his wife and two or three children to spend a holiday together in healthy, adventurous circumstances; and I think that the more this is done in the country, the better for all classes of the community.
I want to say that about transport. Does it matter whether I go to Oxford by road or rail or water, since I am being transported by somebody? Yet a hint is occasionally dropped—we have heard it tonight-—that the canals have nothing to do with transport. They have. The hon. Member for Cheadle was very indignant about people writing to him because they wanted to use the Haddiscoe Cut. He said that the Transport Commission were not out to provide transport for pleasure. And when I asked the hon. Gentleman whether the Commission do not run excursions to take his people to Blackpool, he seemed to think that he would stop the Commission doing it if they took them by way of the Haddiscoe Cut. We can be sure that his constituents would stop that all right.
Until this Bill was deposited no one knew that this proposal was under consideration. That is the first thing we complain about. Let us admit that this is not a very good case on which to fight the issue of the canals, because the Haddiscoe Cut is a small connecting link between two rivers which was only established because the old Yarmouth Harbour Commissioners would not keep the River Yare drained.

Mr. Fell: Mr. Fell indicated assent.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman himself has admitted that. I agree that the people responsible are long since dead and will not vote against him at the next General Election. We are all willing to condemn the sins of our ancestors, even the Conservatives who fight to keep us in our ancestors' ways.
As I have said, that was the first we knew of it I knew it on or about 28th


December, and on 29th December I started to write to people who might be interested. The various interests concerned got together as far as they could. They instructed Parliamentary agents. All this had to be done during the Parliamentary Recess. By 27th January a very large number of Petitions had been presented against the Bill. However, the Commission made no move towards any of them. In fact, it was not until Tuesday last week that the Commission asked my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, whose name heads the list of hon. Members supporting the Amendment, to meet them with some of his hon. Friends to discuss the matter. So we went there, and the Commission objected to our bringing a lawyer with us. Fancy, on a Bill of this kind being asked to meet the Commission, with its engineer, its lawyer and one or two mouth-pieces, and not being allowed to bring our own lawyer!

Mr. Ellis Smith: A lawyer was not needed if my right hon. Friend was there.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend must not get me into trouble with my right hon. and learned Friends who sit beside me on this Bench.
That is not the way for a public body like the Commission to treat people, some of whom, such as the boat owners, are dependent for their livelihood, and large numbers of others for their pleasure, on the maintenance of the waterway.
The Royal Yachting Association, which represents people ranging from those who race in the great competitions at Cowes and elsewhere to humble people like myself who are very glad to be allowed to enter such respectable company if only for a few minutes, at once presented a Petition in which it said that it was willing on behalf of yachting interests, covering the whole group, to consider the payment of some fee for the use by them of the waterway. Other interests—I need not detail them, because they have been mentioned from time to time during the debate—have also intimated that they are willing to enter into discussions. We were recently reminded by the Prime Minister that there is a difference between "discussions" and "negotiations," and, therefore, I use what I understand to be the milder word of the two. These interests are willing to enter into talks to consider what can be done.
I think that that ought to have been done before the matter was brought before the House, because, except for the vigilance of my hon. Friend and others of us who are interested in the maintenance of internal waterways, this matter might well have slipped through. Many things have been killed by Private Bills in this House just because nobody happened to spot what was being done. I understand that next year—this is all I am going to say about next year—when a similar Bill comes up, the equivalent of the Fourth Schedule will be much longer. The Commission has already announced that it is going to close the Kennett and Avon Canal. That has appeared in the Press. In fact, the Commission has written letters to certain people who desire to use the Kennett and Avon Canal to say that this is so.
There is also the Oxford Canal, from Oxford to Napton. It is an important waterway from the pleasure point of view. It does not get one from Blackpool to Cheadle, but it does take one from Oxford to Napton. I never go to Oxford without wanting to get out of it—[Laughter.]—yes, my affiliations are elsewhere.
The canal runs through some of the most delightful country in our land and arrangements have been made by one of the hire-cruiser companies to have a fleet of cruisers on that canal. I hope that before anything of that nature comes before us next year a very different scheme of negotiations will have been carried through by the British Transport Commission. I am not promising much support, but I am promising the Commission plenty of trouble unless something on those lines is done.
May I say that all of us who are interested in this owe a debt of gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary, who invited us to meet him on Thursday? On Tuesday, an effort was made to scare us, but some of us have been in this kind of trouble before and we do not scare easily. I very much resent the way in which some of Tuesday's interview was conducted. When my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft was making a final appeal to the representatives of the Transport Commission to be reasonable, one of the persons there audibly said, "Take them to the Commons."
That is not the way to talk to Members of Parliament. After all, we come to the Commons and we might take other people, but other people cannot take us. When the Parliamentary Secretary asked us to meet him, I said to him, "I should like to bring one of the lawyers," and he said, "Certainly, of course you can bring one of the lawyers." Under his guidance we had a great deal better treatment than we had before. Although the future is not without difficulties—and I want to make that quite clear—I think that he would be able—although I am bound to say we had to present our case very fully—to come towards the point where we could feel that there was a chance of reason being heard in these matters.
I sincerely hope that the result of his efforts will be that the Transport Commission will feel that they can drop for this year the proposal to close this Cut and that between now and the next Bill the Commission produce there will be time for negotiations to see whether arrangements can be made—and it does not follow that what suits this case would suit every case—in which the interests concerned can participate in the way this piece of waterway is to be kept open.
I hope that the importance of this waterway, not merely as a channel of navigation, but as part of the drainage system in the area, may be considered by the appropriate Government Department. Apparently, one of the troubles has been—so we have learned—that when it was desired to have some part of it dealt with as a drainage matter the Ministry of Agriculture found itself unable to assist because the banks were not the responsibility of the river board or internal drainage board, and because there was some technical difficulty of that kind.
Let me make this quite clear, too. This waterway supports, or in some way affects, the land on which the railway itself is built, and the Commission will still have the problem of maintaining this land. Whatever may be the future financial relationship of the other authorities and the Transport Commission, it must be framed in the light of that circumstance.
I regret that I have had to speak with some severity about the attitude that was adopted by the Transport Commission in this matter. I am not sure—I go no

further than this—that the Commission is the right body to have control of the canal system of the country. After all, the relationship between the canals and the railways over the last 130 years has had many lurid patches. For instance, the Basingstoke Canal only paid its way during the time when it brought down the material from which the London and South-Western Railway was constructed, and that railway took away its trade.
Some canals foisted themselves onto the railways, while the railways took over others. There was fierce competition, and what might have been a magnificent system of waterways has undoubtedly been proved impossible of realisation in this country because of the competition that occurred between the two and because of the different interests that were involved.
I want everyone to understand that I am speaking personally and very tentatively on this matter, but it might have been better if there had been an inland waterways body charged by Parliament with the efficient supervision of the inland waterways, their restoration, their improvement—where capable of improvement—and their future utilisation.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will tell us that he has been able to advise the Commission that these few lines in the Bill should not be pressed during the Committee stage, so that it will not be necessary for my hon. Friends to move the Instruction which appears on the Order Paper. It is a remarkable Instruction, and 67 names appear as its sponsors. That, I should think, is almost a record number of names to be attached to an Instruction on a Private Bill. It shows the width of interests all over the country that have been involved in the consideration of this matter.
In one fortnight in August of last year, 1,832 vessels in the main small pleasure craft, passed through the Haddiscoe New Cut, which gives some indication of the amount of pleasure which it has provided. There is no communication by inland waterway between Yarmouth and Lowestoft for any vessel which has a headroom of over 10 feet at low tide and of over 8 feet at high tide if this Cut is closed.
Therefore, this is a waterway of very considerable importance. I sincerely hope that the intervention of the Minister in the discussions that were taking place


last week, and the helpful attitude that he adopted, will bear fruit during the coming year. I hope that we shall get, as the result of free and unfettered discussion, a solution to the problem of this waterway that next year we can unite in commending to the House.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) I feel in a belligerent mood. I am spoiling for a fight. It happens, however, that the particular battleground upon which I intend to let off my little cannon is a different one from that which has been occupied by previous speakers in their manoeuvres.
Before I get to that point, I want to put in a word about Haddiscoe Cut. I have a letter from one of my constituents, who asked me to put his point of view in the House of Commons. I said that if I had an opportunity I would do so. His name is Mr. Holmes, and he wrote:
There are so few amenities left to the people of this Island in this brave new world that I feel that the places in which we spend some of our leisure time should surely be left untouched.
I very much agree with him.
I have had only one letter on this subject. I do not know whether that means that there is only one yachtsman in Yardley or whether the others do not think they have a very sympathetic Member of Parliament. Whether only one yachtsman cares about Haddiscoe Cut or not, almost every one of my constituents has, not infrequently, bought a ticket on a railway and is concerned with the cost of that ticket.
Throughout the debate we have been concerned with the line of credit which, in the first place, we are asked to vote, in order that the British Transport Commission may make its business more efficient. The Bill now proposes a number of schemes, many of which are entirely admirable, but British Railways have one habit I consider to be entirely deplorable, and it is fairly widespread. It is becoming more widespread. I cannot believe that this habit of British Railways is consistent with efficiency.
I take it that efficiency in the railway system means that it must provide an attractive travel service, together with an adequate and efficient freight-carrying

service which it hopes the factories will use. In order to make ends meet, the Commission must encourage people to become its customers and must set about selling its wares. Generally, it is trying to do so, but sometimes, in some places and on some occasions, it does things which are so exasperating that I feel like saying, "A plague on the railways. I shall always travel by road."
A few years ago I lived in a little suburban area in the south of Birmingham, and I went by rail to my constituency by this branch line. I rode my bicycle to the station. There I would leave it, and being a Member of Parliament get my free ticket to Acocks Green. But on getting my ticket I was then made to pay 6d. for the privilege of putting my bicycle in the little tin shack which was there provided. Could anyone imagine anything more calculated to irritate an individual whom the railway is trying to carry?

Mr. Manuel: Why did the hon. Member not leave the bicycle outside the station?

Mr. Usborne: If I had left it outside it would have been taken by a policeman to the police station, where I should have been asked to pay quite a lot more.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not quite see how this point arises on this Bill.

Mr. Usborne: Is not the whole of this Bill, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, concerned with making the railways of this country more efficient? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] These are surely proposals for altering the railway system of this country in order to justify the line of credit which the House has recently voted.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Member is on the wrong Bill.

Mr. Usborne: I obviously bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I understood that we were here to discuss the efficiency of the railways, otherwise I am not clear what this Bill is all about.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is exactly what I thought.

Mr. Usborne: Would you then, Sir Rhys, kindly explain to me, in simple language which I can understand, how it comes about that we are asked to give a Second Reading to a British Transport


Commission Bill, the purpose of which, apparently, is to make alterations and new provisions in the railway system, and to make the railways more efficient.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not the general purpose. There are specific purposes in this Bill.

Mr. David Jones: Has it not been ruled on more than one occasion by your predecessors, Sir Rhys, that when a railway Bill is before the House, seeking new powers, it is competent for Members to discuss how the existing powers are dealt with by the railway company?

Mr. Usborne: I am discussing a point which is most exasperating to me, and it may be possible that in my exasperation I am losing sight of the rules of order; but I still think that what I have been saying has a great deal to do with this Bill.
I have now left Birmingham, and I no longer travel to Wood End on my bicycle. Instead, I live in the Vale of Evesham, near a pleasant country town of about 12,000 inhabitants. I was delighted when I reached that town to find that there were two small railway stations. Between the stations there was a plot of ground, and outside the track a bay, where I was allowed to leave my motor car, before boarding the train for Londonor wherever I had to go.
When I first did this, I was delighted to find that there was no charge for leaving my car, and that it was part of the railway service to provide in Evesham facilities for the intending traveller freely to leave his car while he was travelling on the railway. But could this go on? Oh, no. A year or so ago, an order came from Worcester, and the station master at Evesham reluctantly had to put up a notice, saying that those persons travelling on the railway and leaving their cars at Evesham station would be charged 1s. a day, or 2s. 6d. if they left them overnight.
I discussed this with the station master, and he told me that it was with reluctance he obeyed the order, and that, in a month he seldom collected as much as £5, because so few people left their cars. I imagine that there was more than £5 of labour involved in putting the tickets on the cars, collecting the money, and

giving out the receipts. This is fantastic; it is not service. This is no way to make the railways attractive or efficient. If a railway system is to make ends meet, it must attract its customers.
The brewers are good in their public relations; and from what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), it is very evident that the Transport Commission has a blind spot in its public relations. Has anyone ever been to a "pub" in a country town where he has been obliged to pay money to leave his car or his bicycle while he went in to buy his refreshments? Who goes to a cinema, where there is a park outside, and is obliged to pay for leaving his car while he sees the film? No cinema proprietor, no publican, would dream of deliberately repelling custom and thus becoming so inefficient that he is bound to go bankrupt.
The Commission asks for credit worth £325 million and yet goes on with this trivial and exasperating habit of collecting a "bob" here and sixpence there whenever it can. I may be out of order, but I imagine that I have said enough to show the House that a great many people in my constituency, in Wood End and Evesham, and in many other country towns, feel as I do—that this deplorable habit is wildly out of order if the railways are to become efficient.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I apologise for not having listened to the whole debate, but I was called away on other important matters. I want to raise a subject which, as far as I can ascertain from my hon. Friends who have been here all the time, has not been raised so far in the discussion. It concerns Clause 19.
Incidentally, I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. (Mr. Ede) mentioned the Haddiscoe New Cut. I have had a Petition from my constituents about it. Rotherham is far removed from Haddiscoe, but Rotherham believes that people who work there have a right to enjoy themselves. People tell me that if I want another 60 or 100 names for this Petition it will be the easiest thing in the world to get them. These are not yachtsmen, not men who will go there by helicopter or aeroplane, but honest-to-goodness mine and steel workers


who enjoy their holiday by hiring a boat to sail around a place I have never seen.
May I turn to a wider aspect of the matter? We have all talked a lot about the need for contented workpeople, and some of us try to bring that about. I want to speak for anglers, who will suffer grievously if the Bill becomes an Act. This may not be common knowledge in the House, and it is not common knowledge to those hon. Gentlemen opposite—I do not envy them, although I occasionally do a bit of fishing there when I should not—who are concerned with salmon and trout fishing. I am concerned with the 3 million fishermen for the humble perch, roach, pike and gudgeon.
Hon. Members should read last week's "Angling Times" and see what the anglers in the Kennett and Avon canal area said about it. They had a public protest meeting and raised over £100 by voluntary subscriptions to take legal advice to seek to compel the Commission to do its job properly in connection with the Kennett and Avon canal.
One of my very good angling friends, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel)—a good trout man, incidentally—said, "Well, the water will still be there." I say that it will not be there in its present condition if the barges and locks cease to work. I am gravely concerned, because this is a very serious matter. I know that anglers look upon the closing of these canals exactly as cricketers would look upon the closing of Old Trafford or Bramall Lane or Elland Road; as footballers would look upon the closing of the football ground at Stoke or Manchester City's ground or even Wembley itself.
We can go to any canal in this country and find this problem—the Ashton-Oldham Canal, the Kennett and Avon Canal, any canal we like. The Rotherham area is too polluted. We have to move thirty miles away before we can find water in which fish can live. I say quite sincerely to this Government that if something is not done to preserve the facilities these canals give to 3 million men at weekends there will be an awful "to-do," not in the way of revolution, but in the way of quiet, contented, decent people expressing their indignation at having the sport they value most taken from them because of the niggardly attitude of someone who wants to close something. We

are shutting down too many things in this country which give healthy recreation. These men are entitled to the Minister's consideration.
Britain has a fine export trade in fishing tackle. I could tell the House what it costs me to go fishing. People say to me, "Why are you a teetotaller and non-smoker?" The answer is that I go fishing and I cannot afford to do all three things. When I go fishing I can think about some of the things the Government do and some of the things my party does. I can meditate on them. There is a thriving industry in and around Redditch. Millions of pounds worth of exports are made in Britain, for we make the finest fishing tackle in the world. Those people will have something to say on this question. I could take hon. Members to three shops in my constituency which, between them, never hold less than £12,000 worth of stocks. Today, there are more men wanting to go fishing and less and less water to fish in.
This is a matter to which the Government ought to apply their minds. If the canals have to be closed to navigation, for goodness' sake keep them open for the purpose of sport. If we are beset by the things which may beset us even the canals may be of great value from a strategic point of view. I know of no reason why canal transport should pay so badly as it is made out to pay. Everyone in this House is in favour of good sport. The anglers are entitled to have their point of view recognised. Some of us would go a long way to make things hot so far as it is possible within the law and constitution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne) seemed to get away from the question of fishing rods to that of cycles. In his area there is an angling society of 50,000 to 60,000 men. There are rivers such as the Severn, the Witham, the Weaver and the Ouse, where one may see 8,000 to 10,000 men fishing on a Sunday.

Mr. Usborne: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying, but supposing the Transport Commission got the canals correctly lined up and then charged fishermen a "bob" each for bringing their cycles there?

Mr. Jones: I was coming to that. My hon. Friend seeks recreation on his


cycle. Having found it, he can easily earn that extra shilling; that goes for the angler as well. The most contented men in my constituency, the most contented in the country, are the anglers. They are very tolerant, kindly disposed, placid and meditative.

Mr. Manuel: Not wranglers.

Mr. Jones: If the Minister seeks to get the opinions of recognised bodies in this country he will find they will be willing and ready within the law and constitution to make contributions to keep the canals open for the purposes I have described. I apologise for intervening, but someone had to raise his voice on this question. Every weekend, when possible, I get a lot of pleasure fishing in the canal near the Bickershaw Colliery, near Leigh. Warm water is pumped into it from the colliery and it never freezes over. I know the anglers will look on the Government with greater favour, if they preserve these canals, than otherwise would be the case.

9.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): We have had a most interesting and diverse debate arising out of the provisions of this Bill. I should like to begin by explaining my position in this matter. This is not a Government Bill and the Government are not responsible for it. It is a Private Bill promoted by the British Transport Commission under exactly the same procedure as that by which the old railway companies promoted their Bills in ancient times.
All that is required is that my right hon. Friend should give his consent to the promotion of the Bill under Section 9 of the Transport Act, 1947. The Second Reading of the Bill was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, and all that I am bound to do is to commend to the House the general provisions of the Bill in order that it may go upstairs.
A number of speeches which have been made today have suggested that hon. Members felt that if the House gave a Second Reading to the Bill, that meant that all the provisions of the Bill would necessarily become law. That, of course, is not so. All that I am bound to do

is to suggest to the House that all these various provisions are the kind of matters which should be referred to a Committee upstairs in order that all the interests which may be adversely affected may have an opportunity of having their voices heard.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Would not all this difficulty have been removed if the Government had taken the suggestion of the Committee which dealt with the Rochdale Canal Bill a year or two ago, when we made the recommendation that the Government should take over all the derelict canals?

Mr. Molson: In the course of my observations, I shall be saying something about the canals. At the moment, I am dealing with the general question of the procedure.
In the most interesting speech in which he dealt with Keadby Bridge, the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) made it quite plain that, at any rate for the moment, he had forgotten the procedure upon this point. While recognising that the bridge must be repaired, the hon. and learned Member repeated to the House what he had been informed but said that he did not know whether, from an engineering viewpoint, what he had been told would turn out to be correct. He said, in so many words, "I do not know whether that is true." In dealing with all these technical matters about bridges and the closing of canals and level crossings, and so on, it is of the utmost importance that these matters should be thrashed out.
It is manifestly impossible for us to go into these matters on the Floor of the House, where we cannot follow plans and call expert witnesses. Therefore, in reply to a number of the arguments put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Brigg and by my hon. Friends the Members for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) and Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs), I would point out that most of the points which they raised can be fully dealt with upstairs, when those who consider themselves adversely affected by the provisions of the Bill will have the fullest opportunity of being heard. That does give an opportunity, as was mentioned in several speeches, for the people affected to get together and to discuss the matter.
I would suggest that we must regard the British Transport Commission as a


responsible public body which has had very heavy burdens placed upon it by this House, and I welcomed the speeches of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), for I think it is extremely unfair, if we ask the Commission to conduct its affairs with economy, then to proceed to oppose everything it does to discard its unremunerative functions because it treads on the corns of the constituents of some hon. Member of the House. Therefore, I do not hesitate to commend to the House those provisions of the Bill which are necessary in the interests of economy but which will not necessarily be popular.
Last year, when I discharged this duty for my right hon. Friend, we heard a number of speeches dealing with the question of canals. As a result of the speeches made dealing with the importance of keeping open attractive stretches of inland water, and if possible redeveloping them for use as a cheap and not very slow means of transport, my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for the Colonies suggested to the Commission that it should appoint a committee to go into the various matters which had been raised in the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House displayed very much the same interest in them.
As a result of that there has been a survey of the problem of the canals which are vested in the Commission, and a Report has now been presented. That is now being considered by the Government. I say that to indicate that when the House shows, as it did last year on two occasions, a very great interest in a matter of this kind, and one which is quite obviously important also from the transport point of view, the Commission is perfectly willing to take action upon the subject.
This year, the question of the Haddiscoe Cut has attracted more attention than anything else in the Bill. Under the Bill, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), it is proposed to relieve the Commission of its present responsibility for the maintenance of that Cut.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), in a speech which was most generous and for which I thank him, has indicated, I

invited a number of hon. Members, prominent amongst those who have moved and supported this Amendment, to meet representatives of the Commission on Thursday last, under my chairmanship. There were the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), whose name appears at the head of those associated with the Amendment, the right hon. Member for South Shields, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), in whose constituency the greater part of the Cut lies, and my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth. I felt that each party had a very strong case, and I also felt that there was no real reason why both of their objectives should not be attained. I felt, and my right hon. Friend agreed, that the Transport Commission was perfectly right in seeking to relieve itself of financial responsibiltiy for an inland waterway which it considers is now of much reduced importance for commercial transport.
At the same time, I sympathised also with the wish of the objectors to keep open what I understand is an attractive inland waterway, particularly as it is of great importance for the proper enjoyment of the Norfolk Broads by all those who go yachting and boating there. It seemed to me reasonable, however, that the cost of maintaining the Cut should be shared by those who use it or benefit from it.
I am glad to say that agreement was reached between the two parties on this basis. The Commission for its part is willing to propose to the Committee upstairs an Amendment to the Bill so as to omit words authorising the Commission to abandon Haddiscoe New Cut. Hon. Members who are responsible for the Amendment which has been moved are willing, for their part, to encourage the interests which I have mentioned to enter into negotiations with the Commission.
The purpose of the negotiations is to transfer responsibility for the Cut to some other body. The cost of maintaining the Cut should be borne by all those who use it or benefit by it. These will include the yachting interests, represented by the Royal Yachting Association and by the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Yacht Owners' Association, the Yarmouth Corporation and all other local authorities who benefit from the tourist traffic which


the Cut helps to attract. All people living in the district are concerned with the effect of the Cut on river levels, drainage and flooding, which has already been mentioned in this debate. The Beccles Petition refers to the sugar beet traffic, and the British Transport Commission is interested in the maintenance of the embankment which carries the railway line.
I was interested when the hon. Member for Lowestoft said he hoped that the Norfolk Broads would be made into a National Park, as recommended by the Hobhouse Committee In that event, it might be possible for responsibility for the Cut to be transferred to the National Parks Planning Board. Otherwise, some other body such as the Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Commissioners, or the river board, might be found willing to undertake responsibility for administration, provided that a reasonable revenue were raised by a toll or by increasing the charge which is already paid for having yachts in the vicinity.
I am only mentioning possibilities and, of course, I do not in any way prejudge the conclusions which may be reached or the interests which may participate.

Mr. Edward Evans: We are most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his announcement, but will he consider the point that the Commission itself is a big beneficiary from the whole of the Broads resort area, on the lines which I indicated in my speech?

Mr. Molson: I mentioned the Commission chiefly because of the embankment which supports its railway line. No doubt in the negotiations the hon. Member will seek to persuade the Commission that it benefits as a carrier of the tourists who go to the Norfolk Broads. I very much hope that those public-spirited Members who are anxious to keep the Cut open, and who are supported by a large body of opinion, as my postbag and probably the postbags of most hon. Members show, will be able to find a solution to the problem in the coming months.
If, however, they are not able to do so, the British Transport Commission will be free to renew its efforts to obtain release from its present obligations. The Government, which expects the British Transport Commission to conduct its affairs with efficiency and economy, would support it,

provided, of course, that in our view the British Transport Commission had conducted itself in the negotiations in a reasonable way.
I am grateful for the assurances that I have been given by some of my hon. Friends supporting the Amendment that if a settlement on these lines were not reached within a reasonable period because of the failure of the amenity and other interests to shoulder a fair share of the burden, they would consider the Transport Commission justified at a later date in renewing its proposal, and they would not continue to oppose it.
I regard this as a fair settlement, and I should like to express my appreciation of the reasonable attitude of both sides. I hope it will mean that the Haddiscoe Cut will be kept open for the benefit of yachtsmen and others, and that a much valued amenity will be preserved, but that the British Transport Commission will be freed from an expense which it ought not to bear, except in so far as it needs sound foundations for its railway line.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I wonder if my hon. Friend would just amplify one aspect of the settlement. I understood him to say that if the negotiations broke down the Government would support the British Transport Commission in its application to be freed from the obligation to maintain this Cut. I take it that that undertaking applies only to this particular instance and is not a precedent for the general abandoning of obligations by the Transport Commission in connection with canals, and that in other instances the position will be looked at on its merits if the British Transport Commission desired to go ahead with a similar application.

Mr. Molson: I am dealing only with the special provisions of the Bill.
There is one matter which has not been raised to any great extent tonight, somewhat to my surprise, except by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), in a somewhat hostile way, because of his feeling that London and the South of England were getting more than a fair share. I should like to say something about the proposed tube called Route C. Neither the Commission nor the Government are in any way committed to undertaking this great and costly project.
Before it is possible to take a decision, it is essential that a survey should be made, the owners and occupiers of all the land ascertained, trial borings made, and detailed plans prepared. The reason for including in this Bill the statutory powers necessary to begin the work is to enable all these preliminaries to be completed and, if a decision is taken to undertake the work, to enable the work to be started without any further delay.
That, however, is conditional upon a favourable decision being made after the engineering and financial problems have been fully considered. In favourable circumstances the railway could be opened to traffic about five years after a decision has been made to begin the work. This procedure also enables any persons or interests aggrieved by the proposals to file a Petition against it.
Even before 1944 Lord Leathers had appointed the Railway (London Plan) Committee to consider London's postwar transport problems. The London Plan Working Party was appointed in 1948 by the British Transport Commission to work on the proposals of that Committee. It recommended two tubes, but that suggestion was considered to be too costly. The Working Party, therefore, produced something more economical, which is a combination of parts of the two tubes, and that is what is provided for in this Bill.
If constructed, that tube would run for 11 miles from Victoria to Green Park, to Oxford Circus, Euston, King's Cross, Highbury, Finsbury Park, Tottenham Hale, and out to Walthamstow. A principal purpose of the tube would be to carry traffic arriving at Victoria into the heart of the West End. At present there is no direct route across the Green Park, and consequently there is very heavy congestion at Charing Cross underground station and also on bus services going up Grosvenor Place and along Piccadilly.
This new tube, making connections with the Bakerloo Line, would be extremely valuable. There is also very heavy pressure of traffic to the north-east of Green Park. The electrification of the Enfield-King's Cross line will cause a great increase in the traffic from the north-east to the centre of London. There is, therefore, no question about the desirability of this tube from the traffic angle.
The difficulty arises from the financial angle. The cost of the tube, including the necessary rolling stock, would be about £50 million, which, with interest at 4 per cent. and reasonable provision for redemption of capital, would involve an annual charge of £2 million. To this would be added working expenses amounting to substantially more than £1 million per annum at present prices.
It is impossible to make any accurate forecast, but London Transport believes that on that estimate the tube would be operated at a substantial annual loss. This means that a most desirable improvement in travel facilities in London could not be undertaken without fortifying the finances of the London Transport Executive which are already in deficit, partly as the result of the recent wage award. The House will realise, therefore, why it is not possible for either the Commission or the Government to make a firm decision at the moment as to whether the tube should be constructed or not.
That is the largest part of the Bill, and it was to this that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South took exception. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, who raised the general question of canals to which I have already given a reply, referred to Clause 7 of the Bill, and spoke about the temporary breaking-up of the roads. At present the British Transport Commission and London Transport Executive have no power to do this. In seeking power to break up streets they will then be subject, as my hon. Friend hoped they would be, to the Public Street Works Utilities Act. They are negotiating at present with the highway authorities affected about the safeguards to be observed under that Act.
My hon. Friend also raised the matter of Clause 15. That is essentially a matter which should be considered by the Committee upstairs, but the Clause only provides for closing the level-crossings to vehicles, and not to pedestrians.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South asked me several direct questions. His speech was, to some extent, based upon a misunderstanding. The provisions of the Bill deal only with those cases where the activities of the Commission require statutory powers for their implementation. When the hon. Gentleman spoke about too much emphasis being


given to London and the South of England, he was, I think, referring largely to the introduction of diesel locomotives. He was really in error in thinking that most of the diesel locomotives were to be in London, Glasgow, and the South of England. Those are the areas with very heavy passenger traffic where it is intended to introduce electrification. Therefore, in his part of the country, which is also my part of the country, we shall have a great many of the diesel locomotives.
The hon. Member was concerned about the dislocation that might be occasioned to workers in the shops as a result of this change. If he will refer to the modernisation plan, he will find there an assurance by the Commission that it will try so to organise it that there shall be as little dislocation of labour as possible.
I cannot be sure that I have covered every point which has been raised during the course of the debate, but I hope I have dealt with the majority.

Mr. Usborne: What about the "bobs for bicycles" racket? Is not the hon. Gentleman going to say anything about that?

Mr. Jack Jones: What about the anglers?

Mr. Molson: An earlier occupant of the Chair tonight was on the point of suggesting to the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne) that the subject which he mentioned was hardly a matter arising on a Private Bill which authorises the Commission to carry out works. There is no Clause in the Bill providing statutory powers to erect bicycle racks.

Mr. Usborne: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that an even earlier occupant of the Chair, having heard what

I was going to say, ruled that it would be in order? It seems hardly fair now to say that he cannot give me a reply because an occupant of the Chair earlier ruled the subject out of order.

Mr. Molson: I do not think the matter really arises on the Bill, but I am willing to go into the matter in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman. I do not feel that I can give him a considered reply now about the grievance from which he suffered when he was charged 6d. for storing his bicycle at a certain railway station.
In matters of this kind we are always glad when there is a breath of fresh air and something which reminds us of the English atmosphere. I am sure we all enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields; it had some of the breeziness of the seaman and some of the picturesque descriptions of the lover of the English countryside.
I was very much interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones). We shall certainly bear in mind the importance of the canals for purposes other than transport. This is a matter which is under discussion at the present time between my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
I hope that, with this explanation, the House will think it appropriate to give a Second Reading to the Bill and allow it to be further considered in a Private Bill Committee.

Mr. Fell: In view of my hon. Friend's extremely helpful intervention, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, (SCOTLAND) (MINERAL DEVELOPMENT)

Postponed proceeding resumed on Question,
That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Scotland) Regulations, 1955, dated 28th January, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I had almost reached the last sentence of my comparatively short speech on these Regulations earlier this evening, but by inadvertence I forgot that other business was to be taken at 7 p.m. In extenuation of that inadvertence, perhaps I might plead that because the Government did not deal with the Regulations as they ought to have done in the first place we have had only a comparatively short time in which to put forward any points that we wish to raise.
I do not want to belabour the point. Briefly, I referred to the unexpended balance. I take it that the unexpended balance is the amount left from the £300 million. I asked a question about compensation being drawn from that unexpended balance for minerals unworked and how those minerals would be measured in land which had been compulsorily acquired. I should be obliged if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could give me an answer to that point and satisfy certain doubts which I have about paragraph 20.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I rise mainly to protest against the way in which the Government are dealing with these Regulations. I was not in the House when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman rose to move them, but I hurried back and found that he had expended exactly two minutes in introducing them.

Commander Galbraith: That is most unfair of the hon. Member. He could not have heard that when I introduced the Regulations I asked the House whether it wanted a full explanation and was assured by those hon. Members who were present that they did not desire to have a repetition of the explanation given on a previous occasion. I was quite ready to give that explanation. It was

to meet the convenience of the House that I did not do so.

Mr. Willis: I accept the explanation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I hurried into the Chamber to try to hear what these Regulations were about. I also want to say something about the procedure by which, because English Regulations have been introduced and discussed, we accept the Scottish Regulations.
That seems to be quite wrong. It is a procedure that is not of very great service to Scottish Members trying to conduct their business. To introduce English Regulations and accept discussion on the English Regulations as being quite good enough for Scotland is doing a disservice to Scotland. I make that point, because it seems to be a practice that is extending to rather more important issues. If I were to mention them I would be out of order. However, I certainly think we ought to have an explanation of Part III of these Regulations, because it is entirely new.
I noticed that when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman originally introduced these Regulations, before Christmas, he said that there was nothing new in them. But more than half of them arise out of the 1954 Act and, therefore, they introduce new matter. We should be told how they will operate.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I was present when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman introduced the Regulations tonight. I agree with him that most hon. Members felt we ought not to go over ground which had been covered last December. But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he had received from the local authorities agreement in principle about the Regulations. He also said that he had received agreement in principle from certain other organisations.
But what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not explain was what would happen if there were any disagreement. Agreement in principle seemed to imply that there were some differences which he had not been able to settle as between his office and the local authorities, and perhaps when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman replies he may care to tell the House what those differences were.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I quite appreciate the feeling of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), but, nevertheless, it should be remembered that when we were considering these Regulations in the form in which they were placed before the House on the Tuesday before we rose for the Christmas Recess, the decision of the House was that the Statutory Instrument as tabled was null and void.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: It was the decision of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Rankin: Very well, the decision of Mr. Speaker was that the Instrument as placed before the House was null and void, and that, therefore, following the custom of the House, a new Instrument in appropriate form must be laid on the Table. According to that decision, the proceedings must start afresh. From that point of view, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East was perhaps technically out of order, nevertheless, according to Mr. Speaker, the House was entitled to deal with the Regulations before it as from the beginning.
My attention was attracted to Part III, because it contains a remarkable regulation—Regulation 12—which consists of 17½ lines comprising one sentence. That in itself, is a remarkable piece of draftsmanship, because, as far as I know, a sentence is supposed to have a subject, a predicate and an object. Obviously, that is a simple sentence. One can often find a sentence in which the subject, the predicate and the object are qualified, but, when one starts to read Regulation 12, quite frankly, it is difficult to find out exactly what are the subject, the predicate and the object, and all the modifications and qualifications that attach to each of these three fundamentals of a sentence, and how they will affect the working of the Regulation itself.
I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will do his best to unearth the mysteries contained in Regulation 12, and will tell us, in the simplest language which he can command, exactly what the Regulation means. I do not want to parse it, or to analyse it, or to bring all the other grammatical invasions into this Regulation, but I should like, for the benefit

of those of us who have not the guidance of an expert staff, to be told clearly and simply what Regulation 12 means, and the sort of case dealt with under Part III of this Statutory Instrument.

10.9 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I was rather sorry that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) should have thought it right and his duty to suggest that I had misled the House, but I was grateful to him for saying that no doubt I had done so unwittingly. I have since gone very carefully into the matter. The first thing about which the hon. Gentleman chided me for misleading the House was a statement which I made on 21st December, 1954, when I said:
The hon. Member will be aware that most of the insertions are in respect of Regulations that were made under previous Acts.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 2711.]
It all depends upon the definition of "insertions in."
I am told that if it means "words" I was right, and if it means the number of Amendments I was wrong. As a matter of fact, as the hon. Member clearly recognised, although I thought I was right at the time, events have shown that the hon. Gentleman was right, so far as that is concerned. I apologise for the error which I made in this connection.
The next matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred was the failure to initial corrections in the Regulations. I said:
If the original copy which was laid is consulted it will be found that all the alterations have been initialled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 2711 and 2719.]
Unfortunately I said, "which was laid." I suppose that technically that was not correct. What happens when Regulations are laid is that the original is signed and everything else is initialled, but it is not the original which is actually laid.
Three copies come to this House, which are laid, and three copies go to another place. The original goes back to Edinburgh. The original was signed, and it was that to which I was referring. It was initialled, and in every other respect was quite correct. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me in that connection.
Then there was a question as to the printing. The hon. Gentleman suggested


again that I had been misleading the House when I suggested that the Regulations could not have been printed in time. I was perfectly correct. The final form of these Regulations was decided upon on 7th December. If the Regulations were to be through before this House rose for the Christmas Recess they had to be laid by 9th December. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Regulations are generally finally decided upon in London, and therefore they have to go back to Edinburgh and then again to London, which involves travelling for three days. It was, therefore, physically impossible to have the Regulations printed in time to be laid on 9th December.

Mr. T. Fraser: The whole point of what I said there was that in the context in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said what he did, as reported in col. 2715 of the Official Report which I quoted, the House was given the impression that the Secretary of State did not have as much time as did the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I did not compare the Scottish with the English Regulations. My point was that both Acts of Parliament got the Royal Assent on the same day, and that the Minister of Housing and Local Government had found time to get his Regulations printed and in the hands of Members in proper form.
We could not have known on this side of the House, nor could any hon. Member in any part of the House except those in touch with the Scottish Office, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not the Regulations complete by 7th December. We know that the Act was law on 25th November, and that these Regulations had been made—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Gentleman cannot make a second speech.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the English Minister, being situated in London—and the Stationery Office being situated in London—did not experience the delay which it takes for papers to go to Scotland and to come back here. That is the correct explanation of the situation.
The hon. Gentleman asked me, in connection with Regulation 5, how the depreciation of building, plant, and machinery

was calculated. Depreciation is assessed by normal processes of valuation; that is, on the difference between the value of the buildings, plant and machinery, with planning permission to work the minerals, and their value without that permission. Account is taken of any use which the mineral undertaker might make of the buildings, plant and machinery for the working of any other minerals in neighbouring land. Really the whole matter is summed up in the principles of valuation to which I have referred.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) asked me what is the unexpended balance. As well as I can put it, the answer is that it is the balance remaining of the established claim of the £300 million fund after deduction of any payments for past acts or events made by the Central Land Board or the Secretary of State; and, secondly, the development value of any minerals covered by the claim which have been worked since 1st July, 1948.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me if I would explain Regulation 20. That Regulation provides for the division of the unexpected balance between a less or and a lessee where the mineral land is compulsorily acquired. The first factor to be taken into account in making this division is the value of any accumulated short workings, that is, of any minerals which the lessee has paid for to the less or but has not worked. The second factor is the value to the lessee of the difference between the royalty paid and a full market royalty in cases where the former is less than the latter. Cannot the hon. Gentleman hear me?

Mr. Manuel: I can hear perfectly what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying, but, if he can make it more intelligible, I should be very much obliged to him.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman will clearly understand that there is a difference between the royalty which is being paid and what is known as the full market royalty, under which, it may be, the lessee would be able to make a profit which he would then take into account in making the calculation. The actual royalty may be 3d. a ton and the full market royalty might be 6d. a ton. If the lessee made a sub-lease to someone else he would be making a profit


of 3d. a ton, and that profit would be taken into account in the calculation. I hope that I have made it abundantly clear.
The third deduction is the right of the less or to receive royalties up to the date of a possible break in the lease. There are quite a number of technical matters to be taken into account, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is fully seized of them.

Mr. Manuel: I am very grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for explaining, or attempting to explain to me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Be generous."]—whose understanding is not so great as some of my colleagues on these benches. I put a point, and I should like to know whether I was correct or not. I tried to get the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to explain how one measured compensation for workings not yet developed for which compensation was being paid. That was my main point. How does one measure the compensation for minerals not extracted?

Commander Galbraith: The situation is that, in the first place, a claim has to be lodged. That claim is adjusted in relation to the amount of minerals that have been worked up to date when the compensation becomes payable.

Mr. Willis: But it is based, is it not, on the difference between the original valuation and what has been worked? We do not assess the proved reserves or anything like that?

Commander Galbraith: I understand it is in connection with the claim which has originally been determined.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked me whether I would explain Part III of the Regulations. Part III of the Regulations modifies and adapts the provisions of the 1954 Act, and the more important points are these—and I will here answer the question put to me by the hon Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin): Regulation 12 provides for separating the development value attributable to the presence of minerals from that attributable to the prospects of surface development where the ownership of the minerals is in different hands from that of the surface. This ensures that depreciation in the value of the minerals shall

not be compensated out of the claim holding or unexpended balance attached to the surface or vice versa. It means that we separate the surface development from the mineral development.
The second main set of adaptations-and here I answer the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East—is in Regulations 15, 16, 17, and 20. These make special arrangements to take account of the shifting of development values between the less or and the lessee through the operation of the "break-clause" in leases and accumulated short workings which may result in the division of development values between less or and lessee being appreciably different, at the date of the event, giving rise to a payment under the Act, from the position when the claims were determined.
Regulation 21 provides the same protection for a lessee under a mining lease as is obtainable by a purchaser of land under Section 34 of the 1954 Act, which deals with the protection of a purchaser of land which is compulsorily acquired shortly after he had purchased the land with planning permission. The House will remember that we had considerable discussion on that point when we were dealing with the matter in Committee upstairs.
The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) took it that, because I was rather careful in the words which I used, there had been some disagreement, but I am happy to tell him that all that happened was that these people with whom we consulted made certain suggestions of detail.

Mr. Hoy: Objections.

Commander Galbraith: No, suggestions of detail, which were not accepted. They did not take exception to that. There was no disagreement of any sort with the local authority associations.
I think I have dealt with the various questions, and I should be grateful if the House would now be good enough to approve the Regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Scotland) Regulations, 1955, dated 28th January, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.

ROAD SAFETY (PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kaberry.]

10.24 p.m.

Mr. William Keenan: I make no apology to the House for again introducing a matter of road safety—a subject which I have raised on previous occasions. The aspect which I want to develop tonight is the lack of pedestrian crossings.
Three or four weeks ago, the House was nearly full all afternoon and evening, and nearly 500 Members voted in the Division on that occasion. They were concerned about possible irrevocable mistakes being made through the execution of alleged murderers who had denied their guilt. I am raising a question tonight about the fact that every year there are 5,000 killed on our roads—many murdered, if I may so put it.
I am very anxious that some aspect of the question of road safety should be raised from time to time. In 1953, the last year for which I have complete figures, 797 of the 5,090 killed on the roads were children under 15 years of age, and 2,200-odd were pedestrians. Many of these deaths followed accidents at crossings which have been established for the protection of pedestrians. In my judgment, the accidents were due to careless driving, speeding, indifferent driving and, in many cases, taking alcohol in too great a quantity.
There ought to be more crossings. That, I think, applies all over the country. I represent a built-up area in Liverpool, and I live in another built-up area in Bootle. In Liverpool, in 1951, there were 571 crossings. I want to anticipate the answer of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the former Minister of Transport was responsible for reducing the number of crossings. I am prepared to say that he was. He took the advice of a staff similar to that which the present Minister has. I think it was a stupid, wrong and retrograde step to reduce the number of crossings by 66 per cent.
There were 571 crossings in Liverpool in 1951, and in July last year they were

reduced to 153 zebra and police-controlled crossings. I obtained those figures from the city clerk. The city has 35 miles of double-carriageway and many more miles of single-carriageway roads. There are 22 police-controlled crossings included in the 153 crossings. In Bootle, in 1951, there were 69 crossings, and today there are 25. There are about 10 miles of main roads in Bootle. In every mile of main road there are two or three crossings which are alleged to be safety points for pedestrians to cross the roads. I ask the Minister where pedestrians are to cross those roads apart from those points.
I come to the question of zebra crossings. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), on the last occasion I was speaking on this matter, was twitted by the Minister for not being as cognisant of these matters as I am. He said that these crossings are no use. I think they are. However, although zebra crossings are designed for the use of pedestrians, 89 people were killed on zebra crossings—or pedestrian crossings, as they were called—in 1953, and 686 were seriously injured on them.

Mr. Paul Williams: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has not much time to say what he wishes, but I intervene because I wish to help him. Will he accept as a fact that some of the difficulty about safe crossing on zebra crossings arises from so many bus stops being placed very close to the zebras?

Mr. Keenan: That is not the pedestrians' fault. I am making a plea for the pedestrians. It may be that there are faults in the local authorities' planning. It may be that the Minister does not give sufficiently specific or adequate instructions, or enough instructions.

Mr. P. Williams: I was trying to help the hon. Member.

Mr. Keenan: In 1954, 80 people were killed on zebra crossings, and 785 were seriously injured on such crossings, which are the only crossings for pedestrians on the roads. At what other places, I ask the Minister, should pedestrians cross the roads, apart from zebra crossings?

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Will my hon. Friend allow me to remind him that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary himself has said that these zebra crossings are unsuitable for young children and old people?

Mr. Keenan: I do not agree with that. I believe they can be safe crossings if they are respected by all road users, including the motorists.
Why were there 800 accidents, why were 80 people killed, on zebra crossings last year? Because motorists approach zebra crossings as they approach most other places. They have not got control of their cars. If a pedestrian goes on to a crossing, that is just too bad for the pedestrian. At every crossing at which people presumably have the right to cross the road, every motorist should approach in such a way as to be able to pull up. If he is not able to pull up he is guilty of careless or indifferent driving. There can be no question about that.
I insist, and I insist that the Minister should take note of it, that at every place arranged for enabling pedestrians to cross the road safely they shall be able to cross safely. I do not want to walk on to a crossing just when a car is approaching it, and without giving any indication of my intention to cross. I do not want to do that; nor does anyone else. The pedestrians have a duty to be as cautious as they can be. The fact is, however, as the figures I have quoted show, that many of the motorists show a total disregard for the need to approach these crossings in a safe way. It is scandalous that there should be such tragedies as there are on these crossings.
I turn to the question of main roads. Generally, they are between 40 feet and 60 feet in width. In Bootle, where I live, there is a road nearly two miles long, which runs from one end of the borough to the other. It is a main road, included in 40 bus routes, and the traffic leaving Liverpool for Southport goes that way. There are only three crossings, one at each end and one midway. The road varies in width between 40 and 60 feet.
We want refuges in the middle of the road, where children and old people can wait half-way across, until the traffic on the far side of the road has cleared, before they proceed to cross the second half of the road. Refuges like that are required in Liverpool, too.
My complaint, as a result of what is happening on the zebra crossings, is that motorists are not sufficiently careful. Motorists are allowed to travel through built-up areas at 30 m.p.h., but the Minister, the police, and everyone knows that the majority of motorists travel much faster than that. It is a common occurrence to see them going at 40 m.p.h. through built-up areas. The trouble is that we have not enough police to keep an eye on them. The motorist is allowed to do as he likes. Too little attention is paid to him, though a new Bill may do something to check the road-worthiness of vehicles.
Figures for 1952–53 also show that more accidents occur from 10 p.m. onwards, after the public houses are closed, than during the day. They are a clear indication that motorists are not conscious of their responsibilities. We worry about criminals but allow 5,000 people a year to be killed on the roads, half of them being pedestrians and one of every six a child under 15 years of age. Hon. Members can draw their own conclusions from the attendance in the Chamber tonight, as on other occasions when this important subject has been raised.
Now we are to have a great road programme so that our traffic may move more speedily. I said on a previous occasion that I should like to see roads made of cobblestones to prevent people travelling as fast as they do. Everyone who has a car or motorcycle seems to worship the god of speed. In the interests of potential victims of murder on the roads something more must be done.
The Minister may say, as he has said before, that where there are no speed limits there are fewer deaths on the roads. But that is because fewer people live in areas which are free of speed limits. One can travel at 60 to 70 m.p.h. on stretches of the road to Manchester from where I live, because after one leaves the city there is scarcely a place on the road where large numbers of people foregather. But in Liverpool and other cities, thousands of people have to dodge the traffic in crossing the roads.
Pedestrians have to cross the road, whether they like it or not. The roads were there before the motorists came along. What does the Minister propose to do to help these pedestrians to cross the roads? The zebra crossings are too


few in number, and motorists abuse them by the toll they take of pedestrians who attempt to use them.
I should have liked to speak at greater length, but I want the Minister to have time to reply, because it is important for us to have his reasoned and considered views. I want him to tell me what pedestrians are to do, whether he is prepared to comment upon what I have said about the predicament of pedestrians, and whether he is prepared to take stronger measures against those who murder men, women and children on the roads to the number of more than 5,000 a year.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams: I am grateful to be allowed to intervene. I wish to make a few extremely brief remarks. I should have thought that one of the answers to what the hon. Member has said was that in the centre of major cities pedestrians would be well advised, in their own interests, to cross at the traffic lights at important intersections.

Mr. Keenan: Traffic lights are not very safe places for pedestrians to cross in the major cities, because the traffic goes every way.

Mr. Williams: It is on that aspect that I wish to make my point. At major intersections, where the traffic is held up, pedestrians should have a right-of-way over traffic which is filtering through to the left or the right. That would mean a safe crossing for pedestrians. I hope that in due course the Ministry will be able to ensure that pedestrians are ensured a safe crossing when the lights are with them, and that they will have precedence over the road traffic.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend will be able to answer me at this short notice, but I should like him to tell me what percentage of accidents occurring at pedestrian crossings have been due to the carelessness of motorists and what percentage due to the carelessness of pedestrians. It is a question not of apportioning blame but of learning the reason for accidents which have occurred at crossings. If it is that motorists are completely to blame, it is right that the matter should be fully exposed. If pedestrians are partly to blame, that is also worthy of note.
I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will also be able to pay some attention to the danger which occurs through bus stops being too near pedestrian crossings, a danger which is more obvious under night conditions. It is a subject which worries anyone who uses the roads. I shall be glad to have a satisfactory answer to the point.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I am sure that we all wish to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) in the objects which he has in mind, but my opinion is that the use of extravagant language will not necessarily advance the case that he wants to make. I have been a road user for more than 20 years. I try to exercise due care, as I believe the majority of motorists do, and I do not think that some of my hon. Friend's observations about motorists were completely justified.
If my hon. Friend had confined himself more to criticism of the type of thing that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) mentioned, it might have been more useful, because those who use the roads know that many of the accidents which occur on zebra crossings happen because of the situation of bus stops and the non-observance of the new regulation that cars shall not be parked less than 15 yards from crossings, which applies only to the nearside of the road and not to the offside.
The other day I had a terrific shock. I feared that I should knock a pedestrian down. A vehicle was legally parked on the offside of the road, but it prevented me from seeing a lady with a perambulator who was leaving the pavement on that side. Anyone going at 30 m.p.h. thinking that the crossing was clear, could easily have found himself in difficulties.
There is one other point which I would like to raise in the short time left before the Parliamentary Secretary replies—and I might add that I think the subject merits a longer debate—which is that the Ministry of Transport will sooner or later have to consider the making of regulations which are binding on the pedestrian as well as on the motorist.

Mr. Keenan: Five thousand pedestrians are killed in a year.

Mr. Wilkins: There are only a few moments left, and I did not interrupt my hon. Friend.
I want to cut my remarks short, and I was saying that the Ministry will have to consider regulations which are binding on the pedestrian. Once some person is legally on the crossing and is in possession of it, and a motorist starts to pull away after that person has passed, it sometimes happens that another person appears and "picks up" the crossing when nearly halfway across the road. Could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary who, for instance, would be legally responsible if in those cases the motorist brought his car into collision? I mention this example because there are so many things which need clarification. Everybody wants to provide greater safety on the roads, but we have to be reasonable, and we have to remember that responsibility is a two-way affair between the motorist and the pedestrian.

10.47 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): It is quite impossible for me to do justice to a matter of this importance in the eight minutes which are left to me in which to reply. First, however, let me point out that we have had very conflicting advice given to us in this matter.
The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) has withdrawn, after making an intervention, but his views are well known to the House. He considers that zebra crossings are dangerous and undesirable, and he would like to see them all swept away. I would say to him that I only wish he would go around approaching the local authorities on this subject. If they could be persuaded to listen to him, which they might not be very willing to do, perhaps they would not write to me as frequently as they do, asking for permission to designate more of these crossings.
The hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan), on the other hand, although not entirely satisfied with zebra crossings, asked for more of them to be provided. That seemed to me to be his argument; but I think the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) was entirely correct in the policy which he adopted. He came to the conclusion that what was then known as the Belisha crossing had become dangerous because so little attention was paid to it by the

motorist. Therefore, he reduced the number of what we now call the zebra crossings to about one-third the number of the Belisha crossings which existed previously.
The effect of that has been that zebra crossings are treated with far more respect by motorists than were the previous crossings. I have never claimed that zebra crossings, any more than any other form of crossing, other than a bridge or subway, are perfectly safe. There is no way of avoiding the need for the exercise of discretion and judgment by the pedestrian, as well as by the motorist.
In the new Highway Code which Parliament has just approved, we show on the back cover that a good driver, driving a good vehicle in broad daylight, on a dry road, and travelling at 30 m.p.h.—as he is entitled to do in a built-up area—cannot stop within 75 ft. Obviously, if the ground is wet and slippery, the time which it will take him to stop is even longer. It is, therefore, essential that pedestrians should exercise some traffic sense and discretion in using zebra crossings. It was for that reason that, some time ago, I indicated that they were not perfectly safe for children or aged people who have not got a traffic sense.
As far as the crossing of roads by small children is concerned, my Department, in association with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, conducted a three-month campaign last summer to try to reduce the number of accidents to children below school-going age. The result of propaganda over the last 20 years has been to bring about a most remarkable and satisfactory reduction in the number of children of school-going age killed upon the streets. That is as a result of the instruction which is given to them in schools. We say that, in. the case of small children, they should not be allowed on to busy roads unaccompanied by a responsible adult.
Liverpool, the town of which the hon. Member for Kirkdale was chiefly speaking, has, I am sorry to say, been slow in lighting its zebra crossings and in marking the 45 feet of prohibited length on the approach side of the zebra crossing within which parking is not permitted. Even today, some 20 zebra crossings still await the electricity supply to light the beacons. Thirteen have not yet been provided with the waiting restriction studs, and five


of these will probably present such difficulties as will require adjustment of the crossing position or its abandonment.
I regret the exaggerated language that the hon. Member for Kirkdale has used. It is wrong and, indeed, absurd to talk about these casualties, which we all so much regret, as being in the category of murder. The responsibility does not rest primarily upon the Government. It rests upon all road users to exercise proper discretion. I will certainly look into the point that has been raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), whose much more moderate and constructive speech gives me greater guidance on the steps that I ought to take.
I will look into the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunder-land, South (Mr. P. Williams) and will write to him. We are all co-operating in trying to reduce the number of road accidents. The position at present shows a considerable improvement, but it is not

satisfactory, and certainly there is no complacency in the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. Keenan: Where should pedestrians cross in safety other than at zebra Crossings?

Mr. P. Williams: I understood my hon. Friend to say that motorists were entitled to travel at 30 miles an hour in a built-up area, a speed which requires a distance of 75 feet in which to stop. Why, then, is the distance of 45 feet chosen for the studs? Surely my hon. Friend will agree that motorists themselves should use due care and attention in approaching the beacons.

Mr. Molson: The 45 feet is the distance in which it is not permitted for a cat to be parked or stopped. It has no bearing upon the car which is in motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.